Author Topic: Illusionist Strike  (Read 1242 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Voriig Kye

  • Wise Elder
  • ***
  • Posts: 817
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Illusionist Strike
« on: August 20, 2017, 09:29:42 PM »
I was about to ask this on the RMU sub-forum.
Then I checked in RMC and RMFRP. All versions have almost the same text, so I ask here.

How do you handle the Strike I (Lvl 2) spell in the Illusionist base?
It says that the attack is invisible unless combined with an illusion.
Does that mean that an Illusionist can just forgo the casting of illusions, and deal invisible attacks for just 2 power points?
If the attack is invisible, I'm guessing Quickness DB can't apply, and parry can't apply. Unless in the middle of combat, you could also give the extra bonus for surprise.

Maybe you need to cast the Strike spell to cause damage with a previously cast illusion? The rules never mention this spell when talking about attacking. It just seems that if your illusion has a feel component, you can expend it on an attack.
Maybe it was omitted, and the idea was that you need and illusion, with feel component, and casting the Strike spell, all before rolling the attack.

Or maybe casting Strike allows the caster to prevent the expenditure of a feel component in the illusion.
But why then does the description mention that the attack is invisible unless combined with visual!

What am I missing? ???

Offline Peter R

  • Navigator
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,850
  • OIC Points +480/-480
    • Rolemaster Blog
Re: Illusionist Strike
« Reply #1 on: August 21, 2017, 02:02:03 AM »
In my interpretation most of what you suggest is true and would work. The only flaw would be in trying to match up and existing illusion with a strike to make it appear that the hit came from the illusion.

If the damage came from a touch effect on an illusion then it was the impact with the illusion that caused the damage.

If the damage came from the strike then it is a ranged attack and the actual point of contact will not be known and even the illusionist cannot see it so coordinating your strike and a separate illusion could be difficult. What I would allow told be an illusion of something equally chaotic such as a swarm of insects or birds rushing past the victim to be combined with a strike as most people would shield their eyes in that situation so the seperate points of contact would not be obvious.

If the caster can be seen casting the spell at the target then I would allow all the normal DB modifiers except parry. Avoiding a strike is no different than dodging a bullet, you cannot see them coming either.
Rolemasterblog http://www.rolemasterblog.com
Twitter https://twitter.com/RolemasterBlog
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/rolemasterblog/

Spectre771 A couple of weeks ago, I disemboweled one of my PCs with a...

Offline Sable Wyvern

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 144
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Illusionist Strike
« Reply #2 on: August 21, 2017, 02:32:25 AM »
I don't think a stand-alone 2PP directed spell attack is a problem, especially given that higher level versions increase the range, but don't let the Illusionist move past Degree I attacks. It's certainly no more powerful than a shock bolt. I've always felt that the intention was to allow stand-alone attacks. There's no dispute that the Illusionist can create "feel", which is an exertion of real, physical force; this spell is just concentrating the feel such that it results in potentially damaging impact.

The DB question is an interesting one. I would never have considered disallowing DBs and parries, but it makes logical sense, and there is precedent with the various "heat" spells from the RMFRP Elemental Companion, and possibly elsewhere.

Offline OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol

  • Revered Elder
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,222
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Illusionist Strike
« Reply #3 on: August 21, 2017, 05:26:03 AM »
I don't see why DB wouldn't happen. People usually move during combats, and DB reflects how it's harder to hit such moving targets. As for parrying DB, "parrying" in RM means "sacrificing offensive abilities to improve defensive abilities"/"taking a more defensive stance/approach, thus being less efficient in offensive power but more in defensive power"; it doesn't mean "blocking an attack" so I don't see either why it couldn't apply.
At best, since the attack is invisible, it gains the benefit of always being a surprise.
Other than that, blah, it's a weak attack anyway, and even more since feel is the weakest sense in term of offensive power (with, mayhap, taste). I never understood why people were so fixated in using it for attacks, and trying to limit the power of feel illusions.
The world was then consumed by darkness, and mankind was devoured alive and cast into hell, led by a jubilant 紗羽. She rejoiced in being able to continue serving the gods, thus perpetuating her travels across worlds to destroy them. She looked at her doll and, remembering their promises, told her: "You see, my dear, we succeeded! We've become legends! We've become villains! We've become witches!" She then laughed with a joyful, childlike laughter, just as she kept doing for all of eternity.

Offline jdale

  • RMU Dev Team
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,103
  • OIC Points +25/-25
Re: Illusionist Strike
« Reply #4 on: August 21, 2017, 09:28:13 AM »
I would treat it as a ranged attack, so parry is not applicable regardless of whether you could see it or not. In RMU, dodging is also inapplicable, and evasion don't require that you are even aware of the attack. The only defense that would depend on being aware of the attack is blocking.
System and Line Editor for Rolemaster

Offline B Hanson

  • Senior Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 655
  • OIC Points +0/-0
    • Rolemasterblog
Re: Illusionist Strike
« Reply #5 on: August 23, 2017, 02:48:54 PM »
we are discussing Illusions over at Rolemasterblog.com.

http://www.rolemasterblog.com/rolemaster-spell-law-deconstructed-illusions-broken-mechanic/
www.RolemasterBlog.com
Other stuff I've written: https://tinyurl.com/yxrjjmzg
Files Uploaded: https://tinyurl.com/y47cfcrc