Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => RMC/RM2 => Topic started by: Fornitus on June 04, 2008, 07:54:03 PM
-
In the new RMC books various spells have been clarified into "Utility" spells. This is a very good thing as are the other clarifications. IMHO. ;D
However, as a GM I have a problem with a amount of power (however small) being negated automaticaly by an Aura or Unconscious Will.
If the Utility spell cast is 75th lvl or some redicoulous thing, it should crush any such "automatic" negataiton on anyone below 30th LVL or so.
So, as GM I have arbitrated a 50 to 100 pt penality for the CASTER of a Utility spell against an unwilling target.
Example: Cleric wants to put a enemy into coma insted of killing them using Preservation on Life Mastery.
If the enemy is awake and knows the Cleric is there, I gave the RR a +100 for the enemys benifit.
If the enemy is already drunk and passed-out when the Cleric acts, the target gets a +50 RR. With touch, Prep rnds, and such the Cleric has a decent chance.
This feels right as a balance issue to me.
What do you all do in such situations? Do you just not allow the attempt?
-
I get an item with an arcane spell imbedded in it that changes spell type. The spells come in wall, botl, ball, fog and storm form. An elemental bolt of Preservation cant be resisted...though I would have to read preservation spell to see if I read it as causing a healthy person to be placed in a coma.
Arcane Companion. Mungo say it good.
lynn
-
What do you all do in such situations? Do you just not allow the attempt?
I don't own RMC Spell Law where the details of the Utility spells are probably clarified for RMC, but it seems strange that the clarifications allow a spell like Preservation to be used offensively at all. I use the RMSS/RMFRP rules and these explicitly state that Utility spells can only be used on willing targets or targets unable to resist (an unconscious person might be unable for example). Therefore I think you did the right change to make the abuse of Utility spells harder. I think you could even go so far to not permit such usage.
-
I do not have access to my RMC SL right now but I think Ecthelion is right in which the target has to be willing or they get a huge bonus to save. But I would check you book to be sure. IMO this is one good thing about a PDF as you can do a word search to fin the info fast.
MDC
-
I think what he's saying is that the clarification in RMC SL states that you cannot directly affect the unwilling with a U spell, and that if you use trickery to make them willing, there are instances where treating the U as an F and doing the BAR/RR thing is appropriate.
He would prefer to be allowed to use U spells offensively, especially for dramatic contrast of target and spell level. (i.e. a 30th level U effect can be ignored by a 1st level target merely by being unwilling per the rules.)
My suggestion, is that if you are going to allow some or all U spells to be treated that way, to merely make U spells into F spells, but apply a penalty, as you have.
Do realise that certain low level U spells are sickly powerful if treated as F spells, and set the bonus accordingly. (It takes very little heat/cool solid/liquid to kill a person, and you can usually do it at less than 5th level.)
Your players should be made aware of this fact, and that the goose/gander logic means it can and will happen to them. (i.e. if they can boil someone's blood, then no whining when it happens to them.)
This isn't a game breaking modification, I've played in games where U are treated as F, no modifier at all, just straight BAR/RR effects. . .it had two noticeable effects on gameplay:
1) Shifted power signifigantly in favor of casters vs non casters.
2) Increased the number of spell failures, since BAR is more likely than BSC to produce them.
That's a high end "High magic game" house rule. . .you can moderate it with RR bonuses vs U, and/or by sticking with the text of the spells as written. (i.e. "Heat liquid" is not only a "U" spell, it also specifically states that it only works on inanimate liquids.)
-
LM,
I also think it would also increase the # of party members with resest "realm" spells acst upon them. So they could get a better chance of a save vs the U spells.
MDC
-
I find that in high magic campaigns, defensive spells and magic items are deployed a lot more often.
-
LM has my intent right. With those large penalities the game balance still seams to be ok. Just wana know how others handel it in their House Rules. ;D
-
I don't allow the change you're talking about. Teleporting someone a mile up, boiling their blood, only allowing them to breath water, shrinking someone's armour while they're in it, and so on are all insta-death spells. That's a slippery slope I choose not to tread.
-
I tend to agree with KaBurr. I know of a friend of mine (another GM) who allows characters to make attacks with Utility class spells. There are...how shall we say...AWESOME and MAGNIFICANT spell combinations doing this.
Leaving on a target to 100' in the air... nice 100 foot fall/crush (which we all know that tickles a little).
Teleport target straight into a rock wall... instant petrifaction and oil creation LOL!
Cast Portal on a targets chest...
Leaving on a targets weapon, armor, groin, skull bones, teeth, eyes...
etc...etc...etc... and this is JUST the LOFTY BRIDGE list!
I disallow this altogether as those spells never were really "tested" as attack spells I don?t believe. Dangerous, dangerous, dangerous...
-
However, as a GM I have a problem with a amount of power (however small) being negated automaticaly by an Aura or Unconscious Will.
If the Utility spell cast is 75th lvl or some redicoulous thing, it should crush any such "automatic" negataiton on anyone below 30th LVL or so.
There was a pretty big thread on the topic of Utility Spells a little while back (sorry, I'm not sure where it is now), which addressed a number of these issues in some detail (if you can find it, I'd say it is worth a read).
My opinion:
As a basic rule, a character who is unwilling to have a Utility spell cast on them is immune.
An unconscious character is unable to resist (just as an unconscious character gets no QU bonus Vs a battleaxe, or any other, attack ie there is no great unbalancing element here)
If a character agrees to have a utility spell cast on him but the spell cast is not the one agreed it can be cast as an F spell, with appropriate modifiers which also take into account the defender's Spell Lore and Power Awareness (beware who you trust - the world is not all sweetness and light, there are no tap backs)
I have no truck with the aura/unconscious will business.
-
Langthorne- Would that mean in your worlds a target who wont know the spell is coming at all is still immune? Or do you just run it as a F spell?
It sounds like an issue of choosing whether to reist or not in your campaigns.
Dreven1- Isnt the point of being a PC to be the hero type? The guy who was able to figgure out how to use their spells just a little bit better than the rest of the "normal" aprentices?
Your points have happened in our games of course- Long Door a gusrd off the top of a wall, ect. But is you look closely at those spells there is some automaitc mediation.
For instance-
Long Door is cast FROM the caster so it is in a straight line. The guard therefore falls (if they fail their RR, and dont forget the neg for targeting past the battelments...) generaly less than 60 feet due to the angle. Yes, still nasty.
Portal can not be cast on an organic object. And is the GM rules the Portal takes a full round to form, the target can get a RR to get out of the way.
Teleport can not have an intended "failure" as part of the casting. Putting people into stone only happens on an "unintended" failure. And for some reason we always play you need a solid surface to apear on. House Rule?
So yes it can be a Pain for the GM to figgure, but the variations and posibilities are the reason we play Rolemaster instead of D+D dont you think? ;D
-
Langthorne- Would that mean in your worlds a target who wont know the spell is coming at all is still immune? Or do you just run it as a F spell?
It sounds like an issue of choosing whether to reist or not in your campaigns.
U spells require a willing target, so being unaware that the spell is coming would mean failure (unless unable to resist). The specific situation I am dealing with is when the recipient chooses to not resist the spell, but is then double crossed - in that case the spell would be treated as F with appropriate modifiers.
If the recipient/target made a successful Spell Lore roll I would rule that he could instantly choose to instead resist the double cross (and therefore it would fail), and, in the case of being targeted with a 'friendly' U spell, a successful Spell Lore role would allow the target to choose weather or not to resist based on full knowledge of the incoming spell.
(As was discussed in the old thread, the whole U spell issue is a bit of a thorny one. For me, the only grey areas are 'the double cross' and 'being unaware of a friendly U spell'. For the purpose of the existing rules, my solutions are above. For my own future campaigns, I am working on a 'marker/spell bond' type spell for the use of friendly U spells. My other plan of attack is to make some modifications to Channeling skill to allow the recipient to determine the parameters of the U spell eg Long Door)
-
Putting people into stone only happens on an "unintended" failure. And for some reason we always play you need a solid surface to apear on. House Rule?
So yes it can be a Pain for the GM to figgure, but the variations and posibilities are the reason we play Rolemaster instead of D+D dont you think? ;D
Fornitus, you are SO right about playing this game over DND, I LOVE Rolemaster?s diversity!!!!
However, some of the variations (in fact most that I have found) were WAY overpowered if you leave them all up to situational analysis or ?off the cuff? calls when players dream up a new way to use a ?U? spell?
It?s just a house rule of mine that I think works well (that I don?t allow Utility (U) class spells cast on an unwilling target.) I also allow instant recognition of a spell incoming that does not "feel" like the accepted incoming spell effect... e.g. Marko the magician tries to sneakily (is that a word?! :D ) cast teleport on a now ?willing? target when the target was told to be willing to accept a healing spell of some sort...
Its just a bit more fair I believe... I mean, players sit around all day dreaming up fantastical ways to manipulate the diversity of the game "mechanics" themselves when GM's are off dreaming up places, dates, monsters, layouts, spells, situations, NPCs, scenarios, etc...
If I had the time I would research EVERY ?U? spell and make a ruling per each?I just don?t have the time?
I think I could come up with some nice ones though? after all?if the players can dream some up? can?t GM?s? :D e.g. I would have every underhanded priest try to trick every PC into say teleporting them into a room of vacuum and then simply just taking their "tithe" from the cold dead bodies instead of ever asking for donations! LOL! :D
-
You may also find useful these official rulings on Utility Spells:
http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?action=faq#faq_13 (http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?action=faq#faq_13)
-
You may also find useful these official rulings on Utility Spells:
http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?action=faq#faq_13 (http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?action=faq#faq_13)
Or you might find that they are just another imperfect solution to the problem (with the added disadvantage of recourse to a 'Deus ex machina' type solution).
The Awaken spell is a good example:
Char A is asleep
Char B wishes to wake him up using Awaken spell
Why should we now ask why? Why should that affect whether char A resists? Is the spell inherently not beneficial?
eg Char B believes they are being attacked. Char A is very tired and needs the sleep. Char B casts Awaken. They are not actually being attacked (char B is paranoid/failed his surveilance roll). Does A resist? How is it that A can be aware (asleep) of what B does not know whilst awake (without a Sit Aware Sleep roll)?
If in the next 10 seconds a tree falls onto where A is sleeping, should that affect whether A resists or not?
MANY more examples available.
-
You may also find useful these official rulings on Utility Spells:
http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?action=faq#faq_13 (http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?action=faq#faq_13)
Or you might find that they are just another imperfect solution to the problem (with the added disadvantage of recourse to a 'Deus ex machina' type solution).
The Awaken spell is a good example:
Char A is asleep
Char B wishes to wake him up using Awaken spell
Why should we now ask why? Why should that affect whether char A resists? Is the spell inherently not beneficial?
Would it be to simple to just ask the target player involved in the spell ??? Basically "do you want to resist or not?" and allow the player to make the decision based on how she perceives the caster's intention? (whether she is asleep or not, etc is irreverent imho)
-
It would be simple to ask what the sleeping character wants...but it goes against consistency and believability (and dare I say it, roleplaying).
Sometimes my character can do things I can't. Sometimes I know things my character does not know.
If I was to give a longer solution to the question, I would go through every spell and address the issues raised by spell type Vs asleep Vs unconscious. But that is for another time.
-
It would be simple to ask what the sleeping character wants...but it goes against consistency and believability (and dare I say it, roleplaying).
Magic's believability? ;D
-
Hiya Langthorne, I do hear your point. I was more referring to the "Involuntary" vs. "Voluntary" reactions that our bodies have and actually placing that "involuntary" action in-game context.
E.g. in Real-life(RL) :) we don?t have to "think" to make our hearts beat or to make our eyes blink. However, we can voluntarily make our eyes move.
In a situation where someone casts a utility spell on us (U class) then if we are awake, conscious, etc we can make a "voluntary" override with the effect - either accept or not accept. BUT when we are target of a malicious spell even though it is U class our bodies react to it involuntarily (not necessarily ?accepting? or ?denying? anything)
Now you could say that the GM simply decides what is malicious (because he/she knows all the facts) and would either make it work or not work according to the circumstance. But I feel that instead of placing that involuntary action (which in RL happens for us automatically) up to the GM that its placed on the person being affected.
In summation, the persons "body conscientiousness" is actually being decided by a conscious player.
Make sense? At least that is the way I would justify it, and your right...it?s a Roleplaying game... stuff like this is hard to nail down with 2 dimensional rules! :D
-
Believability might not be the right word - how about verisimilitude? A fantasy world might not be "real" but it could act in a predictable and reasonable way (a similar system to the real world).
I prefer character actions to be justifiable in 'in-game' terms (hence they can be tricked, can in some circumstances have things done against their will etc). The problem with a character's "body consciousness", to my thinking, is that this consciousness can know more of the situation than the character would know if conscious.
There are times when it is not immediately obvious to the character (and/or the player) whether a spell is/will be 1. malicious/dangerous in and of itself and 2. disadvantageous in an indirect way:
Eg.1 B wants to be "Long doored" 100ft forward by A (in order to attack an NPC)
(some possible scenarios)
1. B is moved 100ft forward and attacks
2. B is moved 100ft forward (accidentally) onto a trap area that will instantly spring and kill him
3. B is moved 100ft forward (deliberately) onto a trap area that will instantly spring and kill him
4. B is moved 100ft forward, but into a deadly ambush (which A did not know about)
5. B is moved 100ft forward, but into a deadly ambush (which A did know about)
Eg 2. Char B has just died. Char A casts appropriate healing and then "Lifegiving" to bring him back to life:
1. A is a friend with friendly intentions
2. A is an enemy with sinister intentions
3. A is a stranger with friendly intentions
4. A is a stranger with sinister intentions
Eg 3 A is laying unconscious in the path of a lava flow. B casts teleport to move him from the path.
1. A is a friend and moves B to safety
2. A is a friend and moves B (unwittingly) to a miserable alternative
3. A is an enemy and moves B (unwittingly) to safety
4. A is an enemy and moves B to a miserable alternative
5. B is instead asleep in any of the above scenarios (****)
Should B's automatic/reflex/unconscious automatically resist in any of these circumstances? (I think NO)
Eg 4 A is asleep
B blows a very loud horn to cause sleep deprivation
B blows a very loud horn to alert him to danger (and there is danger)
B blows a very loud horn to alert him to danger (and there is none)
B hits him very hard with a battleaxe
Are any of these more unreasonable than being the victim/target of a malicious/misused U type spell?
**** - Maybe asleep and unconscious should be treated differently. Unconscious should be, as I've said before, "unable to resist". If asleep and targeted by a U spell a character should automatically resist, and have a +100 roll to be awakened. This does not really affect the "Long door" example, or a "Teleport" example where the target is conscious. So in that scenario, a character would be safest from a double cross if asleep...as I said before, it is a prickly issue.
What I want is for a U spell cast on the same character (be he willing, asleep or unconscious) to have predictable and repeatable results (not based on an all knowing unconscious will). Using the spell descriptions as they are for this requires quite a bit of tweaking.
-
Hey Langthorne, very thorough descriptions! I liked it.
I would still ask the question (at least in my game) would the outcome of the spell be benificial to the target? If so, it works, if not, it doesnt (no RR).
I thought about this for each scenario you mentioned above and I would either make that call myself (as the GM) OR I would allow the characters player to make that call... either way I would treat it as resolved for the betterment of the character (or it just wouldnt work if it was for the worse).
Again, this is just my call and really is more of a house rule that I find works for us.
Good luck! I hope you figure out something for yourself!!! :)
May the forces of Essence guide you,
Drev
:)
-
Nice summary, Langthrone.
So in the end a solution might be the introduction of Truenames.
The PC give it away and the spell user can use it bene- or malevolent * on a sleeping or unconscious (N)PC.
( * or even sell it to a telephone retailer)
-
Nice summary, Langthrone.
So in the end a solution might be the introduction of Truenames.
The PC give it away and the spell user can use it bene- or malevolent * on a sleeping or unconscious (N)PC.
( * or even sell it to a telephone retailer)
Thanks. Yes, Truenames !!! I have been calling it a marker spell in my (currently in sketchy draft) spell lists, but Truenames is exactly what I had in mind. That would get around allowing friendly casters to cast beneficial spells on each other, without constantly having to ask permission (very impractical in a combat situation "just cast the haste spell already!!!") - but beware who you exchange Truenames with....but that only covers people characters know. There is still the 'Good Samaritan' (and the incompetent "Good Samaritan") situation to consider.
I would still ask the question (at least in my game) would the outcome of the spell be benificial to the target? If so, it works, if not, it doesnt (no RR).
I thought about this for each scenario you mentioned above and I would either make that call myself (as the GM) OR I would allow the characters player to make that call... either way I would treat it as resolved for the betterment of the character (or it just wouldnt work if it was for the worse).
Again, this is just my call and really is more of a house rule that I find works for us.
Good luck! I hope you figure out something for yourself!!! :)
May the forces of Essence guide you,
Drev
:)
Thanks. I guess my solution can mostly be pieced together from my posts (though within my group of players/GMs each of us has different ideas, so each GM just specifies).
I'd say the "whatever works out for the best" test for a spell has a bit of a "Back to the Future" problem in some circumstances. In order for the 'unconscious will' to know if the spell is to be resisted, it has to see what has not yet been decided in the future (the possibility of predetermination being put aside for the moment): "Yes you can teleport me"...roll, roll, roll...oooppps, it didn't work out for the best (bad targeting, bad recon, spell failure) - OK, tap back, "No, I resist the spell". Beyond that, if the outcome is OK, but the 'outcome of the outcome' sucks (how far forward can the unconscious see?).
It is all about getting something that each player is happy with. It is just a shame that there are so many problems inherent in the system (it is still the best overall system by far, so for that I am very grateful).
In my post above a word came out as "idiotly"...huh? What I typed was (see capitals) P...R....I...C...K...L...Y...like a cactus
-
The original idea behind this thread was my (as GM) inabilitiy to acept the curent "Official Theory" of an aura or something making decisions about spells that the character would have no way of knowing about.
Also, the "consistency" of the game world is the reason for the discussion. If I rule a specific way, then that theory should be able to be taken into acount by the PC's when they plan their stratigies. At least as long as we are running that specific world. ;D
Langthorne has just what I mean in mind.
An "unconscious" character should not just be immune to a spell just becuse.
After all, they are not immune to a sword stab or a slit throat.
I handicap my wizards plenty without curtailing their creativeness. (just ask Archangel.....) :evil1: They enjoy the danger and creating new methods to acomplish things.
The giving of "True Names" has been discused in our groups, but not in exactly the way mentioned above. Perhaps using a "Name" just removes the penalitys I currently use for an unwonted or unknown Utility spell? Does that sound right?
Arrgh. Still wont solve Langthornes samaritan issue.(Good example ;D)
Got it! How does this sound?
Without a "True Name" Utility spells cast on unaware targets would be gven a -100 point penality.(ie an +100 RR for the target)
This is adjusted acording to the situation.
Say, drop it to 50 points if the target is "unconscious" and further if if they are oblivious beacuse of a brain altering drug.(ie Alchohol)
Then only 75 points if just sleeping.
HOWEVER, since healing spells are the ones a good samaritan caster needs to use, the samatitans God could negate the penality. Of course this requires the world to have the good Dieties be far stronger than the dark Dieties or it blows the whole solution. :P
-
I think in the past it has been talked about that a targets "soul" either resists the in coming spell or accepts it. That way it does not matter if a person is conscious or unconscious as the soul is allways active.
IMO True Names could also work but only if your setting allows for it. There are some True Name spell list for RM2 in one of the companions and I think in the SUC.
MDC
-
What I want is for a U spell cast on the same character (be he willing, asleep or unconscious) to have predictable and repeatable results (not based on an all knowing unconscious will). Using the spell descriptions as they are for this requires quite a bit of tweaking.
Langthorne: the "U spells cannot harm you" ruling IMHO gives you predictable results. It means that, for a U spell to work normally, a character must:
- be conscious and willing to be the target of the spell
- if he's unconscious he cannot make the decision to be willing, so he cannot be target (or, if you prefer, you may decide that if he is unconscious he cannot make the decision to resisist, so he's always considered willing!)
- if a character is willing but the spell would led the character into harm, then it triggers a RR (-50 because the character is willing). Why? Because U spells are designed like that, or because the "aura" (guardian angel, astral consciousness, buddha nature, what you like) of the character sense the danger and tries to counter the effect of the spell at the last second, or for any other reason the fit your gameworld.
So Eg. 1/2 and 1/3 would trigger a RR, because spell led directly the target into harm (the ambush is not direct harm so spell works normally IMHO).
Eg. 2 Lifegiving works only if target is willing to be revived (see ruling on healing spells), so there are no problems
Eg. 3 is similar to 1
Eg. 4 are not magical means of awaking a target, so of course they're not subject to the laws of magic!
-
The solution already they said it to you. pass them to F.
If you have a healer all the spells are U if you investigate it and revert it. Instead of treating a serious fracture or 10 D10 pv it provokes them it will pass to F of fact the class U it is is not very interesting.
I use her of the following way but it is a house rule:
Any body wants to recover In consequence of it the healings are U, since only it helps to a natural process. The same thing (happens?)passes with heal vital essence etc.
I treat the other U like F, but that if the target is voluntary does not have to make attack. ( you think if are falling and you resist de fly spell)
-
The solution already they said it to you. pass them to F.
Hm... no that's actually not a good solution unless you want to turn a 3rd level spell into a +100 Huge Fall/Crush attack...
-
This: (1)
Langthorne: the "U spells cannot harm you" ruling IMHO gives you predictable results.
is not the same as this: (2)
but the spell would led the character into harm, then it triggers a RR
(1) means that the spell itself cannot cause harm (eg heat liquid, unwanted waterlungs). (2) also includes elements not intrinsically part of the spell (eg being "Long doored" or "Teleported" to somewhere dangerous, which then may, or may not, cause harm)
What if the deadly trap doesn't spring instantly? What if the deadly trap fails to spring at all/ What if the trap instead springs and kills the NPC, who has a "dead man switch" amulet which kills the PC instantly? (there are plenty of other possible examples)
As far as Lifegiving is concerned, I would regard it as an F spell, with the target getting an RR based on willingness (if a character dies they get to say at that point yes or no to any possible Lifegiving in the future, they do not get to pick and choose as if they were alive and aware of the scenario in the land of the living). The reason I suggest Lifegiving should be designated F is that in many fantasy worlds (and in the mythology of our own world) souls are often brought back against their will....'who dares raise me from my eternal slumber!"
The non magical examples were there as an illustration of how PCs are more vulnerable to other things under certain circumstances, so why not magic?
As a basic rule, I agree that a U spell cannot be cast on a target that is not willing. My argument is that:
under certain circumstances, a conscious character might will to have a spell cast on them but not get the desired result (be it deliberate via a double cross, or be it accidental via poor targeting etc)
an UNCONSCIOUS character is in a different state from a conscious one. The two ways of interpreting this is to say either: (a) unconscious means unable to WILL the spell or (b) unconscious means unable to resist. (a), logically, would mean healing spells would have to be in a new category H (as per Official Ruling) which do not require a willing target. (b) would mean an unconscious character is vulnerable to all U spells (beneficial or not)
a SLEEPING character, I would contend, has his awareness or consciousness impaired to some extent, so is more of a grey area in terms of being in a position to actively will a U spell (hence my suggestion above).
As a general discussion of fantasy worlds, and myths and legends, magic is often regarded as dangerous, volatile and sinister.
Usually, a spell is more effective against an unconscious or sleeping character (ie they are more vulnerable)
eg Siegfried eg Bottom (we can all think of examples I'm sure)
-
This: (1)
Langthorne: the "U spells cannot harm you" ruling IMHO gives you predictable results.
is not the same as this: (2)
but the spell would led the character into harm, then it triggers a RR
(1) means that the spell itself cannot cause harm (eg heat liquid, unwanted waterlungs). (2) also includes elements not intrinsically part of the spell (eg being "Long doored" or "Teleported" to somewhere dangerous, which then may, or may not, cause harm)
You're right! I really made a logic leap up there! :-[
As a basic rule, I agree that a U spell cannot be cast on a target that is not willing. My argument is that:
under certain circumstances, a conscious character might will to have a spell cast on them but not get the desired result (be it deliberate via a double cross, or be it accidental via poor targeting etc)
Ok, so we agree that U spells are designed to be used in a non-offensive way, in other words they cannot be used as an attack (in-game reasons can be found for this point, but leave the aside for the moment). This means that you cannot use a U spell to deliberately harm a target, because spell's nature will prevent you from doing that. So, if you cast a U spells on a target, knowing that it will cause harm to it, the spell will not work.
Plus, if the would-be-target doesn't actually want to receive the spell's effects (because he knows that it will cause him harm or for any other reason), spell will not work.
This makes U Spells a sort of magical contract between caster and target: both must be willing to sign it and laws governing the spell make sure that the contract will not be used for target's harm.
But U spells aren't perfect and they cannot prevent indirect damage or harmful situations of which neither caster nor target are aware of. So if you teleport me to a place were there's a trap of which we're both not aware of and I agree, "magical contract" will be legally signed and spell will work.
What do you think?
an UNCONSCIOUS character is in a different state from a conscious one. The two ways of interpreting this is to say either: (a) unconscious means unable to WILL the spell or (b) unconscious means unable to resist. (a), logically, would mean healing spells would have to be in a new category H (as per Official Ruling) which do not require a willing target. (b) would mean an unconscious character is vulnerable to all U spells (beneficial or not)
a SLEEPING character, I would contend, has his awareness or consciousness impaired to some extent, so is more of a grey area in terms of being in a position to actively will a U spell (hence my suggestion above).
I would treat unconscious and sleeping target in the same way, for semplicity's sake..
-
This: (1)
Langthorne: the "U spells cannot harm you" ruling IMHO gives you predictable results.
Concur :)
As a basic rule, I agree that a U spell cannot be cast on a target that is not willing. My argument is that:
under certain circumstances, a conscious character might will to have a spell cast on them but not get the desired result (be it deliberate via a double cross, or be it accidental via poor targeting etc)
Ok, so we agree that U spells are designed to be used in a non-offensive way, ...
...What do you think?
Totally agree! It just helps the game mechanics and keeps us from "arguing" all the time...
a SLEEPING character, I would contend, has his awareness or consciousness impaired to some extent, so is more of a grey area in terms of being in a position to actively will a U spell (hence my suggestion above).
I would treat unconscious and sleeping target in the same way, for semplicity's sake..
Thats the way I play it, again for simplicities sake ... and it works very well I might add! ;)
-
Ok, so we agree that U spells are designed to be used in a non-offensive way, in other words they cannot be used as an attack (in-game reasons can be found for this point, but leave the aside for the moment). This means that you cannot use a U spell to deliberately harm a target, because spell's nature will prevent you from doing that. So, if you cast a U spells on a target, knowing that it will cause harm to it, the spell will not work.
Plus, if the would-be-target doesn't actually want to receive the spell's effects (because he knows that it will cause him harm or for any other reason), spell will not work.
This makes U Spells a sort of magical contract between caster and target: both must be willing to sign it and laws governing the spell make sure that the contract will not be used for target's harm.
But U spells aren't perfect and they cannot prevent indirect damage or harmful situations of which neither caster nor target are aware of. So if you teleport me to a place were there's a trap of which we're both not aware of and I agree, "magical contract" will be legally signed and spell will work.
What do you think?....
....I would treat unconscious and sleeping target in the same way, for semplicity's sake..
I would say the "not for harm" idea of U spells is not implicit in the description for U spells (putting aside the attempted 'bug fix' called "Official Ruling"), but I would agree with the idea of a magical contract between caster and target for U spells.
If the spells themselves were automatically canceled if harm was about to occur, that would be specified in the description. The description allows for a target to be harmed if they wish to be (by not resisting a harmful spell), so I don't think that idea stands up.
The 'contract' situation is an interesting one. If you go with the 'mystical contract' idea ie unconscious soul/aura etc controls the contract, we have to decide how much the aura 'knows' (both about the spell itself and the caster's intentions - I don't like the idea of some aura having perfect Spell Lore, Power Perception, Lie Perception, etc), and how far into the future it can see. In some ways you can argue that this is a more simple solution, but I would say that it raises more difficult and convoluted questions (mostly metaphysical, I would accept). In one of my earlier posts on this topic I described how a double cross situation could be resolved (one of the advantages is that using power awareness to realise there is a double cross going on is that the character with good magical knowledge/feeling is at an advantage over the barbarian who knows/feels nothing - Rolemaster being largely skill and ability based is also reflected here).
(Note again, if a conscious character does not choose to not resist a U spell there is no argument - spell fails. I am dealing here with the situation where a character 'wants to have his cake and eat it too' - have a friendly character help them, but not want to suffer if their trust is ill judged)
I would add that the contract should only be about the spell being cast, not why the caster is casting it (ie the contract is violated by casting a spell contrary to the one agreed upon. eg I cast waterlungs on you, at your request, but because I know you will be using it to swim into a trap, or because I know the water is about to disappear, or the water is an illusion)
Do you mean that you would treat unconscious, conscious and asleep all in the same way? or just asleep and unconscious? It would be simple, but for me would be a kind of 'sweeping under the carpet' way of doing it.
Rolemaster does detail and consistency very well in other areas, but for U spells falls down a bit, in my book.
I would add here that part of the problem is the number of different types of spells that are designated U.
Really 'healing' spells (including Awaken) should be H type - no RR unless you are conscious and unwilling.
Teleport/Longdoor should be F, with unwilling targets (awake and conscious) given a big additional RR bonus
Lifegiving could be treated as mentioned above
(the list of potential adjustments is long, but you get the idea)
-
eg I cast waterlungs on you, at your request, but because I know you will be using it to swim into a trap, or because I know the water is about to disappear, or the water is an illusion)
Here is another example where I would ask the player being cast upon, "Do you want the waterlungs to affect you?" Therefore giving the player the decision (using their subconscious or metaphysical guardian's aura) on whether THEY feel the spell will help or harm.
The player chooses to have it affect them... the water is real, good. The water is an illusion, they start to suffocate...bad. All in all, the GM nor the person casting the spell is responsible for the fate of the character being affected, it was purely the understanding of the situation of the person being affected. This, IMHO, is the best solution because it doesn?t allow the player to question the ruling. They were the one that chose, not fate, not the GM, not the player casting the U spell on them... they were the ultimate fate of their character.
I think it comes down to how much effort a GM is willing to put forth. I personally don?t like arguments so I default to this option above. :D
Here are the solutions to the question raised:
1) Someone could come up with the "Great List of Utility Spells" and have them track down all the different uses for a utility spell :D MASSIVE UNDERTAKING! :o
2) The character having the spell cast on them needs to be awake and cognizant to decide whether they want to be affected or not. Otherwise U spells will either ALWAYS/NEVER affect someone unconscious/ non-cognizant (e.g. they cant make the decision themselves) based on the way the GM wants to handle those cases from then on.
3) No utility spells work if danger is involved (either known to the GM or to fate/subconsciousness/guardian or the person casting the spell) This is the "contract" idea mentioned above where fate steps in and protects the character knowing more than the player typically would from the world around them.
4) U class spells work unless there is danger involved (decided after the spell is cast) and then the target gets a -50 RR.
5) Treat U class spells as H.
Sound right?
-
With the waterlungs question, how about if the character has been duped ("if I cast waterlungs on you, you can go and get the special item/gold/magic amulet/save the maiden" roll duping skill, failed resistance "OK")?
They question should be "Do you want waterlungs cast on you, but then controlled by the caster? (duration etc)
The options seem to be most of the ones raised.
5) should be only Healing spells.
-
Hm... no that's actually not a good solution unless you want to turn a 3rd level spell into a +100 Huge Fall/Crush attack...
No, no it isn`t true. in 3rd level if he fail his RR can move 30m or 100 feet if you put 30m he will fall on you very bad idea.If you send in a diagonal with a good angle in order that he reaches a height and he could not hit you on having fallen with 30 meters of charge. It(he,she) you remains in 24 meters. What means to +10 for every 10 feet or 3m +80 but:
You have to wait to that this to 3 meters. All the warriors have aptitude to attack before already it is an arch, throwing cross-bow or a halberd. 2 you have to prepare to launch a spell with a ridiculous scope and gain a RR if you survive the attack Without parry....and the usually in an armor TA9 you obtain a D critical ....well I believe that it the risk (?The risk is worth it?)deserves that continuous ace
-
No, no it isn`t true. in 3rd level if he fail his RR can move 30m or 100 feet if you put 30m he will fall on you very bad idea.
Lol, you can teleport target anywhere within 30m radius... no need to teleport him 30m right over your head!
You have to wait to that this to 3 meters.
Hm.. yeah if you're alone it could be a problem... fortunately most of the times pure users have other party members that stand between them and their target! So the 3 meters radius is not so dangerous, expecially if you take in consideration that for 3PPs you can get an effect that's the equivalent of a Black Channel!
Why should I ever waste DP developing bolts and other silly attack spells while, in the same list I got spells that:
a) move me and my allies around instantly and make me/them fly around, giving me a great tactical advantage.
b) let me move others around... where I want! Even in a trap I just prepared, mid-air, right in the middle of our ambush...
Yes, they need to fail a RR but every other attack spell need either a RR or a normal attack roll.
-
And put the Leaving spell on a bolt via Runes or the like,
would give it a decent range. ::)
-
Lol, you can teleport target anywhere within 30m radius... no need to teleport him 30m right over your head!
;-) If you raise your it to 30 meters of height must to being in the vertical perfect one to his original situation. 90 degrees and for force to less than three meters for the scope of the conjuration. If he wants he will be able to fall down in you.But it does not matter, with a sword of a meter more the length of his arm comes to him for impactacte with all the force of the fall. for that i said to send in diagonal.
black chanel XDDD this is good a black chanel
.1) Thrayn?s Touch -50 Disrupts Body Cells;
Touch Foe operates at -50
2) Eye of Nur 25' -30 Knocks foe out; 25 hits
3) Uonic Curse 50' -25 Any one limb useless
for 1-10 days.
4) Tauric Finger 50' -10 Blinds foe 1-10 days;
+10 hits.
5) Londarin?s 100' None Nerve disruption;
Hand foe is sent into coma
Speak to me about Touch of Disruption that if that is a spell of toy that nobody uses. you must gain initiative, because you touch him ( dificult touch with a hand a man with a lance ) and The effect is pathetic.
Playing at comparing this spell is much better Light Eruption 10'R ? 100' F open N.5 mentalism -10 TR or 1) Sleep V varies ? 100' Fm niv 1 closed of essence. The first 2 rounds of sleep are magical .
yes closed of esence (the same realm) and two levels below. 30 metres of range, and if he fails you have two rounds to kill him.
-
a black chanel
.1) Thrayn?s Touch -50 Disrupts Body Cells;
Touch Foe operates at -50
2) Eye of Nur 25' -30 Knocks foe out; 25 hits
3) Uonic Curse 50' -25 Any one limb useless
for 1-10 days.
4) Tauric Finger 50' -10 Blinds foe 1-10 days;
+10 hits.
5) Londarin?s 100' None Nerve disruption;
Hand foe is sent into coma
Yes, and it's 10th level of a Base spell list, vs a 3rd level of a Closed one... the effects are quite similar IMHO (target = dead if fail RR), save that with Black Channel you get a better range (but it's more difficule to cast and cost much more).
Light eruption it's good, but it's 5th level and doesn't discriminate between enemies and friends. Sleep is also a good attack spell... but that's the only thing it does (as all other attack spells), while leaving (and the other U spells) can be used also in other ways and just that makes it a LOT better
Sorry, but I still think that there's good reasons if U spells are just U spells and cannot be used to attack!
-
IMHO (target = dead if fail RR),
no no no XD ,Even a critical E only has 20 % of possibility of killing. A slept man has 100 % of dying. Closed level 1
a black chanel has a lot of Negatives to the TR that is its force.
And you are the only person of the world that sees in the possibility of attacking 5 instead of to one a disadvantage.
3. Flash* 1 target varies 50' DE look of tp lists instantaneous, you can cast the spell and them attack with de blade. level 3p instantaneus and of essence the same realm
-
Well, if you think that making U spells F type will not create any type of unbalance you're free to do as you wish.
You just seem to forget one thing in your examples: the spells you bring as examples can be used only to attack... ;)
-
yes you are rigth. I think that my system it isn?t perfect but I think tha it is better tham the standar. why if you can cast a spell that break his bones. you can`t cast one that send him 100 m over the floor. if you can cast fly or fall you can be fine (healt?)
On the other hand I have another way of controlling it of the telepor. to send someone with telepor you
must to have been there or that someone have described it or you have see it. Well we enter a very special way of seeing the topic. And my English is very bad. I will try to explain. ( house rule too) I (use)think that the teleport looks for a destination inside the scope equal to the description or to your mental image.
If we depart from it in the teletransporte you neither can say sending someone to a kilometre of height since you neither have been there nor have seen it they you nor have described it and in addition it is equal to any other place of the surroundings.I am in the habit of demanding that at least YOU have a point of reference. (I am an engineer and me the topic goes, I like to interpret with logic to be able to interpret the results with coherence).
I uses that if the description is too vague and it fits for multiple destinations the most nearby (near?) it is the one that is chosen.That way you cannot send anybody to the sea bed (very deep in the sea?). From a ship. And if you teleport yourself to a hotel it is possible that you appear in the room of the side. Game has given my me very much with this rule.
I dont now if you like it. but I am interesting in know your opini?n Arioch. I like your opinions
-
yes you are rigth. I think that my system it isn?t perfect but I think tha it is better tham the standar. why if you can cast a spell that break his bones. you can`t cast one that send him 100 m over the floor. if you can cast fly or fall you can be fine (healt?)
Do you want a out-game reason or a in-game reason? ;D
Out-Game: because that would make spell users too powerful.
In-Game: can be anything you like and that works in your game world. The most simple explanation would be "because these are the Law of Magic" ;)
-
first, I don?t think so.and I think there are most potent attacks in all the realms.
second, It is a poor reason. I was waiting more, mmm probably an interesting debate. But I was referring to know your opini?n of the teleport rule.
I am not sure but I can It is possible that I was confusing you with lord miller
-
first, I don?t think so.
I know you don't! :laugh1:
and I think there are most potent attacks in all the realms.
Sure, but this is not a reason to give yet another application to an already very powerful spell. By making all U spells (including teleport) F spells you make such spells much more versatile. For this reason spell users will have to spend less DPs in their list (since having spells that have multiple functions will lower the need fo attack-only spells) and the game will be unbalanced in their favor.
But I was referring to know your opini?n of the teleport rule.
Oh, I like it! But how do you determine where people are teleported if they fail to give an appropriate description?
Maybe we should split this in a separate topic, so that other may join the conversation? :-\
-
ok it Maybe a separate topic.
But how do you determine where people are teleported if they fail to give an appropriate description?.
Oh, when com gives a wrong description for example.
_fast, fast telepot us to my to the center of my room in the city, has a bed a window a table and it is about 100km away in the eastern part.
he teleports his group
Since almost any room in the zone fits in this definition
I would throw the dice to the hazar to decide if they appear in his room (01) in an empty room in an empty house without problems (05-08) ..........in a cell of the prison of the king (91-95) in half of a council of the capos (Captains) of the mafia (+100 or more)(Organized crime)