Topic: Base Casting Roll in RMC

[bocklin]

Okay, quick question about casting spells in RMC.

If I understand correctly:

1 - If I cast an attack spell (e.g. "Sleep V"), I roll on the "Base Spell Attack Table" (SL p. 268) and then use the Resistance Roll Table to see if the target is affected
2 - If I cast an elemental attack spell I roll directly on the relevant table (e.g. "Ice Bolt") and apply the results
3 - If I cast any other type of spell I do simply a Base Casting Roll: if I roll 03-100, my spell works

(Question 1) So I only roll Base Casting Rolls when casting non-attack, non-elemental attack spells. Is that correct?

(Question 2) Now, what if I am Overcasting an elemental attack spell (Option 10.4)? Would I have first to roll a Base Casting Roll to see if the spell works and then after that roll on the relevant elemental attack table?

Thanks in advance for your help!

Bocklin

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

(Question 1) So I only roll Base Casting Rolls when casting non-attack, non-elemental attack spells. Is that correct?

Not quite. Your Base Casting Roll refers to any spell casting roll (non-elemental - not really positive about this as the rules are slightly vague). How that roll is resolved is different for each though.

(Question 2) Now, what if I am Overcasting an elemental attack spell (Option 10.4)? Would I have first to roll a Base Casting Roll to see if the spell works and then after that roll on the relevant elemental attack table?

This may actually require a ruling from ICE. As I said, the rules are kinda vague there.

[Marc R]

One of the nice things about the ESF rules. . .

We changed them so they EXPAND the failure rate, rather than requiring a seperate roll.

So, if you are using the ESF options for overcasting, and overcast with say a 20 ESF penalty.

For BSC:
The 01-02 failure rate goes to 01-22. . .23 and up succeeds.

For BAR
The failure rate is variable on the table based on armor factors. . .find the right column, then pull the "F" results up the table 20 points. (so if you "f" at 01-07, you now "f" at 01-27)

For EAR
The failure rate is given on the table, pull the "f" results 20 up the table just like BAR.

I know that might not be 100% clear, but that was the intention.

[Justin]

For BAR
The failure rate is variable on the table based on armor factors. . .find the right column, then pull the "F" results up the table 20 points. (so if you "f" at 01-07, you now "f" at 01-27)

That's where the fails are, but what about damage etc? Shouldn't it just be treated as a -20, so that 1 over the minimum success(for example, 28) hits/misses like an 8?

[Marc R]

Based on the logic of the original system, in which ESF required an extra roll to overcome. . .then letting you cast normally if you suceeded, with no mods.

Essentially, the ESF stuff makes doing it more complicated, so either you do it well, or you blow up. . .

So, without ESF, you do a sloppy 23 roll and it still goes off, but either misses, or barely hits.

With ESF, you do it sloppy at 23, you fail.

You roll a 99 or 100 either way, and it's a spectacular success.

it's not a mod to spell casting difficulty, it's a mod to spell casting failure. . .you are taking more risks and cutting corners or pushing your abilities beyond their limits. . .the odds of success do not change, but the odds of failure go up, and the penalties for failure go up at the same time. (ESF mods to the spell failure table are ugly.)

Well, actually, if you accumulate 98 or more ESF on a single spell, without some sort of bonus to balance it out, you now fail on an UM 01-100, so in that instance, the odds of success are 0%.

that make more sense?

[Marc R]

An aside example used on me, comparing it to weapons.

It's like pulling off a trick with a sword swinging it arond your body and slashing someone. . .it's not a -20 penalty to OB, it's a +20 to the fumble range. . .it's doing something the wrong way, so your odds of hacking your own foot off increase, but if you get it right you can still top the chart off and decapitate the foe. . . .

[Setorn]

That is how I read it, LM. 

[bocklin]

An aside example used on me, comparing it to weapons.

It's like pulling off a trick with a sword swinging it arond your body and slashing someone. . .it's not a -20 penalty to OB, it's a +20 to the fumble range. . .it's doing something the wrong way, so your odds of hacking your own foot off increase, but if you get it right you can still top the chart off and decapitate the foe. . . .

Thanks! It makes a lot of sense to me now.

And I guess having one roll less is a blessing, considering the numbers already required in a session.