Topic: Cleric who canot speak

[Peter R]

I want to have an NPC Cleric who has had his hands mangled and his tongue ripped out. He will be an escapee from the bad guys stronghold. He is intended to fulfill two functions in that he can lead the party right to the heart of the bad guys base using the same route that he used to escape and he will be able to give the party some probably much needed healing. The party are all first level and this guy will be around 5th or 6th level.

I know the ESF mods for his mangled hands but what about his inability to vocalise the verbal element of the spells?

If it was just this one character then I would just make it up whether his spells work but with my players I imagine that they will probably cut off the hands and rip out the tongue of the bad guy's magic user in their idea of justice just to see how he likes it. In that situation I think being fair and consistent is important.

Any suggestions?

[markc]

(I tried looking at RMC Spell Law and did not find it there so I jumped to the RMSS books where I knew where the table was, the penalties should be the same or about the same.)
Using the table on page 106 of RMSS no voice and no hands provides a cumulative penalty of -30 to all casting attempts.  Note: I used the no voice penalty for having no tongue so you may want to up the penalty a bit more depending on how good a job they did and maybe even create a specific tongue ripped out crit that needs to be healed. 

MDC

[Peter R]

Cool, thanks.

My Spell Law has -30 for no hands for Essence and Channeling users so I will make it a -60 in total for both disabilities.

I had the no hands from Spell Law it was the tongue that had me stumped. Be villians of the piece are Drow (subterranean Dark Elves) and are remarkably vicious so I may up it a bit for our poor old cleric.

[Spectre771]

Figures I had Spell Law with me all last week at work.  I was reading it on my lunch break.  I'm pretty sure there was a penalty given for no verbal component.  Luckily the book is still on the kitchen table so I can take a peek when I get home.   I would also agree that a safe assumption is "-30 for missing a component of casting", verbal/somatic.    But having a much needed healer with a -60 to heal the party?  That's pretty cruel in itself!! LOL


Methinks thou hast some Drow blood in thine veins!

[Peter R]

He is only there really to lead the party past the mpossible odds of the Drow outer defenses but if he can heal the party a few times then that may help them out. He is not there to do the parties work for them. Also these players have a tendancy to over think things, do nothing for two human hours arguing the best course of action and then ignore everything they have argued about and charge anyway. If I gave them someone they could interogate then we would be there all night and achieve nothing. if I have my way I would rip out the tongue of every NPC on the planet just to make them think for themselves.

If at some point he has an ESF and ends up in a coma then that is another issue the party has to deal with. Wouldn't it be a shame if they could carry all the loot or the comatose priest but not both? I suspect that at least two of the party would suggest they drink a toast to their fallen friend with very fine wine once they are out.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

In the original RM2 "Spell Law", there's no modifier for the absence of verbal component: it's not a mandatory element (chapter 10.9 doesn't mention it). However, the "Spell User's Companion" refine what component is actually needed: verbum, motus, symbum, gemynd, and gredus. According to that, what the absence of one component does is an option, and left to the GM. In your case, one suggestion would be to increase the cost of the spell (in PP), or to give a penalty to the BAR or the EAR.

[Peter R]

That is what I found. There was a -30 for no hands but no mention of the verbal element. I think I am happy with a total mod of 60 for his ESF roll.

A failed healing spell is not going to kill the party but could take out the poor cleric and leave the party in a worst state than when they started.

Also the reason he was maimed this way by the Drow was to stop him casting spells as they know he is a Cleric. They were happy for him to try and heal his fellow captives as the Drow use slave labour and a healthy slave is a profitable slave.

[rdanhenry]

In the original RM2 "Spell Law", there's no modifier for the absence of verbal component: it's not a mandatory element (chapter 10.9 doesn't mention it). However, the "Spell User's Companion" refine what component is actually needed: verbum, motus, symbum, gemynd, and gredus. According to that, what the absence of one component does is an option, and left to the GM. In your case, one suggestion would be to increase the cost of the spell (in PP), or to give a penalty to the BAR or the EAR.

In my RM2 Spell Law (Stock #1200, ISBN 0-915795-01-9, copyright 1981, 1984, cover is invisibility cloak guy with no border), 10.9 is "Tactical Tables": Turn Sequence, Armor Table, & Statistic Bonus Table. It covers penalties for ESF on pp. 22-23, "12.2 Extraordinary Spell Failure". It says nothing about needing to speak to cast a spell, nor provides any penalty for not doing so. It's possible that Character Law does mention a vocal component; it's not handy at the moment. One could interpret the ESF rules either to imply that a spoken component is never needed or the contrary conclusion that it is always necessary, so no penalty is provided because if you can't speak, you cannot even attempt a spell.

In this particular case, the GM should consider to what degree a Channeling spell in his setting is actually a prayer. If the god merely provides power and the Channeler must shape that power on his own, then the loss of his tongue merits a large penalty. If, however, the god (or his proxy) actually has a hand in the immediate effect, then such a being could understand a supplicant even muttering past a stump of a tongue, and no penalty would be necessary.

[Peter R]

My Spell Law #1200 ISBN 1-55806-092-8 Copyright 1989 says... and I copy 'n' paste...
Page 37
A spell user of this realm may draw his strength from his respective deity, and often does not require that deity's cooperation; this is especially true where the spell user is employing relatively weak or subtle spells (e.g. healing, detection, etc.).

The rules for ESF are the same with regard to no mention of a penalty for lack of voice.

The cleric in question is 6th level and I would put that in the realm of relatively weak and we are talking about healing so a double tick in that box. He will be able to make some noises just because I want to fun of roleplaying this NPC trying to be helpful but not being able to vocalise and I want him to be able to cast some spells at great risk to himself so he will be able to do this. I am god and I say so! If that was the end of it then I would go with that and just make up the rules as I went along. I expect though the players may try and do exactly the same thing to the ultimate bad guy behind this, who the players will meet eventually but not today, as he is a Drow wizard with a double figure level. At that point, for it to be fair, the players need the same penalties working for them as they had against them even if they do not know what those penalties are.

So in this game voice is required and having no tongue will incur a penalty. Does +30 to ESF sound like a sufficient penalty to you or is it too much?

The Drow are not stupid, their intention was to cripple his spell casting but they are evil enough to leave him some hope just to see him try and then fail and become a burden on his fellow slaves.

Drow, you just got to love them!

[Spectre771]

if I have my way I would rip out the tongue of every NPC on the planet just to make them think for themselves.

If at some point he has an ESF and ends up in a coma then that is another issue the party has to deal with. Wouldn't it be a shame if they could carry all the loot or the comatose priest but not both? I suspect that at least two of the party would suggest they drink a toast to their fallen friend with very fine wine once they are out.

That's awesome!  My group has a tendency to do that from time to time too, until someone says "Well, I'm all for democracy.  Whatever the majority votes for, I'll go with."  Then they charge in headlong anyway.

Great idea with carrying the comatose or the goodies.  My party would bury the body and drink anyway.

(As a note.  The culmination of 18+ month campaign is tonight.  THE final battle.  For the past 6-7 sessions, we've been arguing how/when to attack.  Now it's here and I foresee even more "enthusiastic discussion" happening tonight before we even make the attack.)

[markc]

  IMHO you also have to consider the time the book was written and in what environment the game industry was in at that point. There are a lot of things in the original RM2 that have been changed by the RoCo's or by the RM rules guys here at ICE in the 80's, 90's and 2000's that are not in the original book but most have agreed need to be there.
 (I started in on the ICE Forums about 98 or so but the Collected RM Rulings web page had a ton of good stuff for both RM2 and RMSS/FRP, I have not looked for the page in a while but I think it is still out there somewhere.)


MDC 

[Peter R]

Could you possibly look out for that collective rulings page please?

I looked last night and found one on the ice webring but it was so vague as to be completely useless.

[jdale]

There's this in the Vault: http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?action=tpmod;dl=item258

[Peter R]

(As a note.  The culmination of 18+ month campaign is tonight.  THE final battle.  For the past 6-7 sessions, we've been arguing how/when to attack.  Now it's here and I foresee even more "enthusiastic discussion" happening tonight before we even make the attack.)

Are you going to tell us what happened?

[Peter R]

There's this in the Vault: http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?action=tpmod;dl=item258

Thank you!

[Spectre771]

(As a note.  The culmination of 18+ month campaign is tonight.  THE final battle.  For the past 6-7 sessions, we've been arguing how/when to attack.  Now it's here and I foresee even more "enthusiastic discussion" happening tonight before we even make the attack.)

Are you going to tell us what happened?

It was a very interesting night.  There was more enthusiastic discussion than there was actual gaming/combat.  The Demon Lord was a challenge, but she focused mainly on the Paladin while the rogue bowman with a bonus for dealing damage to "summoned outsiders" laid on incredible damage.  One attack round yielded 97 points of damage by him.  My attacks were putting out around 50-70 points of damage.  I think actual combat lasted only 6-8 rounds, at most.  I only rolled an attack 4-5 times.

The Demon Lord grabbed the Gnome, but the Gnome had a potion of gaseous form and was able to escape.  The healers in the party kept the Paladin going, along with his own Lay on Hands skill.  For all the hells we went through over the last 15-18 months, the rogue archer, the one who got us and himself into more trouble than what he was worth, was the star of the battle.  He ultimately brought down the demon, and there are none in the party who can argue that point.  The tanks, the spell casters, the healers, were easily the supporting roles.

It was great to finally see what we were hoping to defeat after all these months.  What an amazing journey it was.  Truly fantastical and well fleshed out.  The GM took the module and incorporated it into his world so it wasn't simply a standalone dungeon crawl.  We had to campaign for well over a year to work through the intrigue and then spend months just slogging through the 4 levels of the Temple.  Within the temple, there were so many plot twists and possibilities we could have followed up on. 

[Peter R]

Excellent.

You should not run down those supporting characters. Without them neither the rogue or the paladin would have stood a chance. The party is an orchestra not a soloist. Well that is what I tell my backing singers anyway.

It is funny you mention the length of the battle. I cannot remember being a part of a single fight that lasted more than 6-8 rounds. As a GM I use James Bond movies as my choreography model and encourage the party through many small encounters before the big set piece final battle. I like to bring on extra minions from the flanks or behind. I use balconies to force the players to deal with threats from above. For every level in the party I like there to be at least one round of 'stress' by which I do not necessary mean battle but the threat of battle. The defenders may be fallng back in front of the party or maybe the party can hear some creature circling them even if they cannot see it. A full on combat round for us seems to take about half an hour to play out so an 8 round battle is a full evening in its own right. To be fair right now our party will put out four attacks in the first round from me, up to four attacks from the warrior, two attacks from our ranger and one to three from the magician using those triple firebolt spells. That is thirteen attacks, probably eleven criticals, four initiative rolls, adrenal move rolls, tumbling attack moves, two weapon combo rolls plus maybe orientation rolls and perception rolls. That is just us in the first round before the enemy get a look in.

The game our friend the tongueless cleric is in will be for first level characters so I will not be throwing so much at them from the off and also the need for a bit of mid-adventure healing above and beyond anything they have themselves. Attacks-wise i would expect no more than one a round from each player. There will be several encounters where the party will matched or out numbered before they even get to the Drow part of the adventure. On the other hand the party will be better armed, armoured and prepared than the creatures they will be encountering.

[Spectre771]

Excellent.

You should not run down those supporting characters. Without them neither the rogue or the paladin would have stood a chance. The party is an orchestra not a soloist. Well that is what I tell my backing singers anyway.

The reason I mentioned the length of the battle is that it was vs. 1 demon lord.  Nearly all of the sessions for the last 6 months have been dungeon crawls to get to her.  And those battles were vs. stronger/higher level spell casters with minions.  When we went down to the Demon Lord, we didn't trip any of her traps.  We didn't explore her lair.  We didn't "accidentally" make her stronger or open the doors to any of her minions. 

Compared to the last 18 months, the final battle was very quick.

(It was a <ahem> D&D module/campaign.  Rolling crits and getting nice crit damage is non-existent.  D&D kills by HP.  RM kills by crits and can make for a much shorter battle, so 6-8 rounds in RM is a pretty decent battle.  4-6 rounds in D&D vs. a Demon Lord on the 4th level of the Temple of Elemental Evil seems very fast, and only the Paladin took damage.  The Gnome took one hit/grapple, but escaped with gaseous form... again, compared to what the party had been dealing with just to get to her, it was very short.)