Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => RMSS/FRP => Topic started by: ForumFerret on September 29, 2010, 11:10:07 AM
-
Is there a modifier listed anywhere to Spell Mastery a list to make spells Hour / lvl or Constant? I'm thinking in particular of Armsmaster Armor and Fortification lists.
-
No, and personally, I wouldn't allow it. But an alchemist could simply embed a costant version of the spell into an item
-
Welcome to the Official Ice Forums, ForumFerret!
Hour / lvl or Constant
Most of the Fortress Law spells are 5-10 min/lvl... If you want a Constant spell that you cast... I think Spell Enhancement
50. Permanent is the way to go. So forget the Constant spell that you can cast. Like Arioch said, a magic item would be better; though not affordable.
If you took the standard Spell Master x5 Duration = -50.
Then you'd have 25 min/lvl or 50 min/lvl.
But that -50 is pretty bad.
You could always have x6 Duration for a -60. But I'm not sure why you want this.
Can you Meditate, speak Magical Languages or use Magic Rituals?
-
Thanks for the warm welcome :-)
I think I can Meditate to offset larger penalties.
With the single spell per round rule, it seems like an Armsman ( or any self buffer ) will need to spend 3 - 4 rounds bringing all their enhancements on line. That ignores wanting to cast things like Anticipations spells to keep yourself from getting splatted. How do you cope? Did I miss a ruling that Haste allows for two spells per round since you have 200% action?
-
With the single spell per round rule, it seems like an Armsman ( or any self buffer ) will need to spend 3 - 4 rounds bringing all their enhancements on line. That ignores wanting to cast things like Anticipations spells to keep yourself from getting splatted. How do you cope? Did I miss a ruling that Haste allows for two spells per round since you have 200% action?
The RAW-Rules as written, allow only one spell per round.
How long are you're combats, man?
Cast those spells before you need them. As an alternative... Parry! :)
Many of the spells on those Lists are Instants (10%Act). Can't you Parry and cast instants in the same round?
Your GM is tough. ;)
-
Well, that's the thing - we haven't quite gotten to our first session yet. :)
I'm just trying to get a handle on what to expect and make sure my understanding of how things are supposed to work is correct.
I've got a Mentalist who's probably going to learn Armsmaster Armor Law list; As I see it, in a surprised situation he's going to end up doing something like the following:
Round 1:
Snap phase: Autocast Shield
Normal phase: move to cover
Deliberate Action: fire crossbow at primary target (if I have enough action left)
Round 2:
Snap or Normal: Cast Blur, draw weapon or begin preparing Sleep
Round 3: Cast Sleep, begin preparing Greaves
Round 4: Cast Greaves, close into melee range, deliberate melee Attack
Round 5+: Snap Cast Anticipate ranged/melee, Melee opponent, later, rinse, repeat
I'm coming from D&D 3.5, so 5 rounds to get into the swing of things seems long. I'd expect combats to be over by then.
I'll have spells from Armor Mastery, Mind Attack, Mind Mastery, Mind Speech, and one other list at start. This issue gets exacerbated when I also want to case Greaves and Helm, and Enchanted Armor...
-
Sounds like you'd be better off actually being an Armsmaster...or Warrior Mage, rather than a mentalist, if attempting that sort of stuff.. :)
(Though with the right talents...possible..)
Welcome to the parallel world of Rolemaster!
-
I can see how you'd get that impression, Grinnen. I'm only dipping into Armor Mastery from Armsmaster and investing heavily in physical combat for the first few levels so I can survive long enough to achieve REAL ULTIMATE POWER(tm) later, when my mentalism skills are enough to stand on their own.
-
I can see how you'd get that impression, Grinnen. I'm only dipping into Armor Mastery from Armsmaster and investing heavily in physical combat for the first few levels so I can survive long enough to achieve REAL ULTIMATE POWER(tm) later, when my mentalism skills are enough to stand on their own.
IMHO you are doing it the opposite way most go about it. But I have also played a pure spell user that wanted to be a melee fighter. He knew enough to stay away from the big combats but was OK enough to parry and be ready to cast spells to support the others.
IMHO RM PC's are going to be weaker than what you are used to at specific levels, about 1/2 as powerful.
IMHO I would not enter melee combat unless you have to and would wear leather armor or someother type that does not interfear with your spell casting too much.
It also sounds like you are trying to play a 1/2 mentalist 1/2 armsmaster which can be tough especially at lower levels. Again I would recommend trying to stay away from combat and using your spells to aid the more combat oriented PC's. But that is just MHO.
MDC
-
I was thinking AT13 plus the Shield/Blur/Greaves/Helm spells would do me quite nicely in phyiscal combat, paired up with the Anticipations spell list to keep me from getting hit at first and second levels.
By 3rd, I think I'll have enough DP in various lists to be able to start hanging back and doing more crowd control with Spell Mastered Pain and 10' radius Shock Bolts.
There aren't any Lightning Bolt / Fireball equivalent spells in the Mentalist lists, are there? I suppose Spell Mastered Major Pain could work for a Fireball equivalent.
-
If you're a Mentalist, just wear armor.
Mentalist Mind Attack (aka Mind Flayer) Spell List is an idea.
Also, don't get into combat, if you can help it. You're a Mentalist; mentalize someone else to do it.
-
Additional a follow up;
You're trying to figure out how to play BEFORE you sit down to game?
That's awesome! :'(
The GM will appreciate it.
-
Spell mastery question concerning the use of Spell mastery cast spells at an additional target: Would you allow a person using spell mastery to achieve this effect to target the same person twice? If yes: Would you penalise such attacks, Would you roll one or two BAR's etc?
-
Spell mastery question concerning the use of Spell mastery cast spells at an additional target: Would you allow a person using spell mastery to achieve this effect to target the same person twice? If yes: Would you penalise such attacks, Would you roll one or two BAR's etc?
As I answered in the RM2/C/X section no.
MDC
-
As I asked in the other thread :): What is the reasoning behind this? And though the issue of the questions are similar they are by no means the same (the questions that is :D)
When answering no: do you mean that you would never use these optional rules to begin with?
or is it more a question of balance than of reasoning?
-
Because it is one spell with multiple targets. Unless spell specifically state otherwise, you cannot double up on a target (and even in those cases, you don't force multiple RRs, you create a RR penalty).
-
Because it is one spell with multiple targets. Unless spell specifically state otherwise, you cannot double up on a target (and even in those cases, you don't force multiple RRs, you create a RR penalty)
Good answer. I do allow SM to give "additional target(s)" but that would be the same target.
-
A sleep V against a level one target with all picks against the target would result in a -20 to RR (using repel undead spells as a guideline). So if you wish to double tap the target with the same attacking spell, appropriate results could be:
1) an additional -5 to rr.
2) spell attacks target twice (one bar, two rr's)
What is the two target spell is a firebolt? A +20 OB for surprise or back seems appropriate. Maybe x2 hits? Perhaps even an extra crit one severity less than primary attack?
I think the +20 to OB for firebolt and option #1 have the best balance.
-
Dual elemental attacks might work if you stick with the logic of "two bolts, one target", but at best I'd use the rules with Directed spell applying to the first shot, and the second at +0 OB. . .in which case you'd be better off using your SM in some other manner, as anyone you can really pwn with a +0 bolt is likely even more dead with a x2 damage bolt.
Might make for a way to shotgun at a target with way high DB, hoping for an open ended result.
I rarely allow SM to duplicate other, higher level spells, so I Might draw the line at triad of flame . . . .
-
Because it is one spell with multiple targets. Unless spell specifically state otherwise, you cannot double up on a target (and even in those cases, you don't force multiple RRs, you create a RR penalty).
I am not sure you understand exactly what it is I am asking for Rdanhenry. You can with the table for spell mastery in RMSS double up on targets no matter what the spell says. Or rather you can add one target pr -30 penalty you take on your skill roll.
I reckon Yammahoppers take with one BAR and two RR's make most sense.
Considering Yammahopers example with the sleep V spell you could cast this at two people and argue that since you spell mastered it for an additional target they should both suffer the -20 RR (assuming they are both level 1)
Deliberating on the firebolt example: Would you then make it +40 x3d and two additional crits -1 sev for +2 targets and +60 x4d for and three additional crits -1 sev for +3 additional targets? There seems to be a good reasoning to this and it's pretty straight forward to figure out but not all that balanced.
-
Not an official rule but GM reasoned rule.
IMHO being struck by two firebolts in the same action % would be x1.5 D and normal crits. If the attacks are at vastly separate action %'s then normal damage for each. Or if the attacks are on opposite sides of the target they both would do damage normally.
My reasoning is that since a round is 10s long; that is a lot of time to be able to be attacked and when an attack occurs matters as well as where the attacks come from matters. There is only so much surface area to try to burn and only so much O2 to burn around the target. That is if you do not rule that it is magical fire that does not need anything to burn to sustain it or make it bigger.
Another question that arises out of the 2 spells Talent is what if their is only one target and yourself? Do you have to target yourself or can you turn the talent off?
MDC
-
I think RDan meant you can't "double up" a target ala "Now make five RRs vs sleep V my solo 1st level opponent."
Usually, if you use SM in the RAW, without the GM standing there saying "Wow, that's book legal, but the answer is no in this game" then things get out of hand.
-
I think RDan meant you can't "double up" a target ala "Now make five RRs vs sleep V my solo 1st level opponent."
Agreed.
Usually, if you use SM in the RAW, without the GM standing there saying "Wow, that's book legal, but the answer is no in this game" then things get out of hand.
Agreed as well.
The consensus seems to be that you should not allow additional targets gained from SM or talent to target the same object/person.
-
I have used that shotgun effect before, with word of death, cast by a Nazgul many years ago.
It is a powerful option, but in a high magic world, it makes sense. Imagine magic missile in RM terms; mutiple shortbow attacks against the same target, each with its own attack roll and possible critical resoltion. High magic.
-
In my game, I stay far away from using SM to increase damage. There are no X2, X3 hits that SM provides.
Yes you can add an additional TARGET. IMHO, the same spell can't affect one target twice. That specific TARGET has been declared.
GM's don't particularly like SM damage increases. SM can be easier to develop than Spell Ranks.
Have fun in your game!
For my game specifically, this would be Munchkin. I allow SM to increase Range, Duration, AoE, Bolt to Balls (be careful!), Hollow Balls, Following/Cornering/Ricochet Bolts, Off/On (C) Durations, Additional Targets and other nonsense, but not damage/ Crit multipliers.
This may have been cleared up in an errata
-
I do not think so as the SM options are listed in SoHK.
MDC
-
Multiple targets is not the same thing as multiple hits on one target. Those few spells (like Repel Undead) that *do* allow spell power to specifically focus on a single target say so, which implies that only spells that say so have this option. In the case of multiple bolts, I can see the argument, as the spell creates and launches physical fire bolts that could presumably then hit anything. However, by the same logic, I would say that the description of the "Area of Effect" as "1 target" for bolt spells is wrong, as the magic actually affects one bolt, which then may be launched at a target. I could also see taking the +1 target effect and ruling that the bolt hits the primary target, then "leaps" to the secondary target (with a +0 OB - even Triad bolt spells don't let you apply Directed Spells skill multiple times). Depends on how "magical" the GM wants the elements to be. If Fire Bolt launches normal fire by means of magic, that's a bit different from a Fire Bolt of magical fire.
When it comes to multiplying concussion hit damage, that was available in RM2 core (or at least it was a Spell Law option). However, instead of buying a skill up to boost for free, you spent extra PPs. I think the threat of mega-Fire Balls is probably more a balance concern, especially if you let Spell Master stack with Talents and with Spell Enhancement. That could get seriously gross.
-
Hence the GM sometimes needing to nod and say "Yes, that is book legal, but no.", I suspect that TWC is the only other skill that's come as close in terms of creating controversy and thread length.
-
It is a powerful option, but in a high magic world, it makes sense. Imagine magic missile in RM terms; mutiple shortbow attacks against the same target, each with its own attack roll and possible critical resoltion. High magic.
That would be a tough spell!
Would Magic Missile be closer to a -25 shortbow attack, with +5 OB/lvl. Positive OB may be split between multiple missiles/targets in +5 increments. Or go the I, II, III route. Hehe.. Magic Missile X, Lord Missile!
One of the most handy spells in that game, may not be as lethal in RM.
-
There's a spell, I believe it's "Magic Dart" but I could be misremembering, for HARP, which essentially went for the MM effect. . . .and cast at higher scales/levels using it as written would blow dragons to mist. . .there's a lengthy thread on it somewhere.
Keep in mind that IIRC MM in AD&D is 1/odd level, so a 7th level mage peppers you with 4 bolts a 19th level mage peppers with 10. . .with RM, where crits kill/TKO you roughly 8% of the time, there's a point where having 4 (much less 10) crit rolls made each attack a serious problem. . .one of the reasons lightning bolt is so deadly is simply because at the top of the chart it does three criticals. . .but at least RAW that's 1 roll for three results, so still 8% roughly chance of being taken out directly, though more chance of being downed by accumulated stun/hits/penalty. Multiple separate attacks means multiple separate crit rolls. . .which due to the 8%/per crit issue means you're way upping lethality before you even consider issues like stun/hits/penalty. . . it's not twice the damage, it's twice the chance of directly taking you out that makes allowing it really problematic.
-
.with RM, where crits kill/TKO you roughly 8% of the time, there's a point where having 4 (much less 10) crit rolls made each attack a serious problem. . .one of the reasons lightning bolt is so deadly is simply because at the top of the chart it does three criticals. . .but at least RAW that's 1 roll for three results, so still 8% roughly chance of being taken out directly, though more chance of being downed by accumulated stun/hits/penalty
LM.. can you cite this pg please? We've always made separate rolls.
-
It is a powerful option, but in a high magic world, it makes sense. Imagine magic missile in RM terms; mutiple shortbow attacks against the same target, each with its own attack roll and possible critical resoltion. High magic.
That would be a tough spell!
Would Magic Missile be closer to a -25 shortbow attack, with +5 OB/lvl. Positive OB may be split between multiple missiles/targets in +5 increments. Or go the I, II, III route. Hehe.. Magic Missile X, Lord Missile!
One of the most handy spells in that game, may not be as lethal in RM.
For am MM in RM I think I would just have it do damage only maybe 1d10/2 or 1d10 depending on LvL. I also do not know if I would allow the DS skill to apply to every missile or use the Combat Companion (tweaked) to develop s style that allows a skilled person to use DS skill with more than one bolt or I might just have them do a full OB first MM, -xx OB second MM and so for and so on.
Does that make sense?
MDC
-
Can you cite this pg please? We've always made separate rolls.
Spell Law, section 8.8.4 (page 261): Certain critical strikes fall in the range of 'F', 'G' ... A separate roll is made for each critical and all results are applied cumulatively.
Arms Law, section 5.6.4 (page 122): Certain critical strikes have an 'F' severity ... A single roll is made for both criticals and all results are applied cumulatively.
Treasure Companion 9.3.1 (page 49): The weapon delivers an extra critical ... The critical uses the same critical roll as the original critical.
So, clearly spells that exceed 'E' severity allow for multiple rolls. "Additional" critical effects (e.g., from ice-enchanted weapons or some talents) use the same roll. In the RAW, weapons that exceed 'E' severity do not allow for multiple rolls, but I think I like the notion that exceeding 'E' severity provides for extra rolls, but "additional" criticals do not.
-
Hmm, I'd always assumed the same roll was a blanket rule. . .learn something new every day.
It's a major difference though, an 8% chance of being taken out is a 92% chance of staying up (slightly less for the fact the hits/stun might take you out) shifts to 16/84 for two rolls and 22/78 for three rolls unless my math is off.
It's bad enough eating a J as is. . . .I love the tingle of danger RM puts into combat, but a it gets excessive. . .I far prefer my PCs pulped to the edge of death by an 80 roll applied across three tables, and having a story to tell later. I guess that's just a house rule at my table.
But, in context of MM, the progression of crit survival is:
Out of fight/perhaps still up
1Crit 8/92
2Crit 16/84
3Crit 22/78
4Crit 28/72
5Crit 34/66
6Crit 39/61
7Crit 44/56
8Crit 49/51
9Crit 53/47
10Crit 57/43
The progression, converting something like MM to RM rapidly gets out of hand, though MarkC's answer of applying flat damage, not crits, might more resemble the concept of MM, though in RM terms it would be less "Magic Missile" and more like "Magic Taser".
-
Another option for additional crits is use the Rule from SM:P and plasma weapons or simply have additional crits work of the first crit roll and have some mod to it. For example roll a 85 and 2nd crit gets a (85-20=65) 65 for the second crit. You can use some other # besides 20 as I just made that up.
MDC
-
Can you cite this pg please? We've always made separate rolls.
Spell Law, section 8.8.4 (page 261): Certain critical strikes fall in the range of 'F', 'G' ... A separate roll is made for each critical and all results are applied cumulatively.
Arms Law, section 5.6.4 (page 122): Certain critical strikes have an 'F' severity ... A single roll is made for both criticals and all results are applied cumulatively.
Treasure Companion 9.3.1 (page 49): The weapon delivers an extra critical ... The critical uses the same critical roll as the original critical.
That Spell Law quote is from the section on using Spell Law without Rolemaster, so it cannot be considered definitive. Unfortunately, the section on criticals in the RMSR is silent on the subject. It is either hidden away somewhere non-obvious or there is no actual RMSS rule stating whether additional critical from elemental attacks above an 'E' crit should be on the same roll or multiple rolls. This may call for a ruling.
-
The rule goes back to RM2, 1989 SL page 20, that section uses much of the same text, lifted directly, so I don't think that ruling was made unintentionally, it appears the quoted text from the RMSS book is the RAW, even if I personally disagree with it, and house rule spells to follow the same rules as weapons and additional crits.