Author Topic: Spell failure ranges on spell charts due to high AT?  (Read 2561 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dreven1

  • Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 311
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Spell failure ranges on spell charts due to high AT?
« on: February 11, 2016, 01:59:14 AM »
Hiya all!

Quick question about spell casting and the Elemental Attack (EAR) Tables (Icebolt, Firebolt, Water bolt, etc.)
We just started a new game and one of my players cast a Icebolt at the parties tank. He is wearing AT:20.  I didn't roll very well and ended up getting a 13 total after his DB was subtracted.

On the Icebolt attack table that an "F" shows up.  Since the caster didn't fumble with unmodified (01-02) for the spell....does he/she still need to roll on the spell failure table? or does the bolt simply miss?
 ;)
Not sure how casting a bolt against a high armor type would cause a spell failure.  Please help!!  Thanks all!!
"All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

Offline Ecthelion

  • ICE Forum Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,497
  • OIC Points +0/-0
    • Character Gallery
Re: Spell failure ranges on spell charts due to high AT?
« Reply #1 on: February 11, 2016, 06:51:44 AM »
If strictly following the rules you would indeed have to roll a spell failure. But I also don't see why armor or defender's DB should really have an influence on the spell failure chance. Therefore in our group we at least don't consider the DB mod when determining whether an elemental attack spell fails.

Offline bpowell

  • Senior Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 528
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Spell failure ranges on spell charts due to high AT?
« Reply #2 on: February 11, 2016, 09:00:24 AM »
Isn't the AT for spell failure the CASTERS AT, or am I missing something here in reading this.  English is not my first language.

-BP

Offline OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol

  • Revered Elder
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,222
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Spell failure ranges on spell charts due to high AT?
« Reply #3 on: February 11, 2016, 09:43:10 AM »
If strictly following the rules you would indeed have to roll a spell failure.
Agree.

Quote
But I also don't see why armor or defender's DB should really have an influence on the spell failure chance.
If we consider that concentration is required to "aim" at a target, spell failure due to DB mod may merely represents the target dodging a lot, thus causing stress to the spellcaster (e.g., the results of many spell failures in the fumble table) or him misfiring. Now, spell failure due to armour is harder to conceive.  :-\
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 tbigness

  • Navigator
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,517
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Spell failure ranges on spell charts due to high AT?
« Reply #4 on: February 11, 2016, 11:49:32 AM »
I have always used the chart numbers for Fumble or Failure so yes that would count. Although I would like to see an elemental Fumble chart if the Spell itself was not fumbled by the roll itself. This could lead to some entertaining events....  :)
Knowledge is unimagined Power

Offline Dreven1

  • Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 311
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Spell failure ranges on spell charts due to high AT?
« Reply #5 on: February 12, 2016, 11:02:50 PM »
Thanks for all the replies guys! My biggest complaint is that when someone casts an Iceball against a group...and the roll is low... some creatures dont take any damage and one creature might have a higher AT causing the spell casters Iceball to fumble.  This just doesn't make good rule sense.

Any other recommendations? Only fumble on an UM 01-02?
"All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

Offline Witchking20k

  • Revered Elder
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,312
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Spell failure ranges on spell charts due to high AT?
« Reply #6 on: February 12, 2016, 11:25:04 PM »
In RMSS/RMFRP spell casting is a static maneuver followed by an attack roll if I recall.  The static maneuver takes place one round and the attack roll the next.  The casters Armour and preparation etc affect the static maneuver; but once the spell has been cast they have no effect on the attack roll (unless the result of the Spell Casting Static Maneuver says other wise).  There are 3 types of Attack rolls- the Base Attack Roll (BAR), the Directed Spells Roll and the Elemental Attack Roll (I think that is what its called).  The BAR seems to be what you are describing as the method that you are using to determine whether a spell is cast successfully or not.  I think you should look at the rules fore directed spells and elemental attacks and make sure you are using the correct tables
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.

Offline Dreven1

  • Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 311
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Spell failure ranges on spell charts due to high AT?
« Reply #7 on: February 12, 2016, 11:29:01 PM »
I am using a cone attack that resolves on the Icebolt table! :D sorry for the confusion.  You are correct, the Iceball table DOES only fail on a 01-02 UM! thank you for that clarification. How do you resolve multiple attacks on the Icebolt table against more than one target if the AT decreases the result to a "F" for wearing AT 20 vs nothing for AT 1?

For instance: FireHounds are also known as Hell Hounds or Devil Dogs. The Fire Hound uses fire breath as its main weapon, usable once per round (bolt range 50'; cone length 30', base 20'). This beast is immune to fire attacks, but takes double concussion damage from cold attacks.
"All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

Offline Witchking20k

  • Revered Elder
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,312
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Spell failure ranges on spell charts due to high AT?
« Reply #8 on: February 13, 2016, 07:43:38 AM »
Ah, I see what you are saying.  An attack roll of 15 vs. AT20 Results in F while for AT1 it results in - (no hits).  The fumble range is still an UM 1-2.  Usually you pick a primary target to be the center of the cone or ball attack.  I'd use them as the Failure range if you want to.  That being said.  It is a single effect- not multiple attacks.  It doesn't really make sense to have the attack Fail after being successfully cast IMO.  An arrow cannot be fumbled after it has been shot.
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.

Offline Dreven1

  • Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 311
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Spell failure ranges on spell charts due to high AT?
« Reply #9 on: February 14, 2016, 07:10:05 PM »
You got it! That's exactly my issue.  I believe I will treat the center point as the one to judge whether it is a fumble and if another target in the cone receives an "F" result, I will ignore.  Thanks!
"All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

Offline Majyk

  • Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 477
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Spell failure ranges on spell charts due to high AT?
« Reply #10 on: February 15, 2016, 12:41:46 AM »
If on the EAR, just ignore it.
It is a bad rule.

It would be the same thing as attacking with any other melee or missile weapon and the same thing occuring vs them re: high DB/AT...

We'd need to rename the system FumbleMaster for every combat when getting past the usual 01-02.

EDIT:  in RMU, it looks like they took it out of the game, also, re: EAR(now DSR=Directed Spell Attack), IceBolt table Page 145, Arms Law(RMU PLAYTEST).

Offline MariusH

  • Seeker of Wisdom
  • **
  • Posts: 253
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Spell failure ranges on spell charts due to high AT?
« Reply #11 on: February 15, 2016, 09:18:04 AM »
Our group also found it weird that targets DB and armour should affect the fumble chance. We've therefore house ruled this to say that all spells fumble on 01-02 UM only (01-04 UM for arcane).
There are three kinds of people: Those who know math, and those who don't

Offline yammahoper

  • Sage
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,858
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • Nothing to see here, move along.
Re: Spell failure ranges on spell charts due to high AT?
« Reply #12 on: February 15, 2016, 04:05:00 PM »
Bolts and balls cannot be parried, so a very low result occurs most often when wounded. I like the low attack result f's.
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time... like tears in rain... Time to die.

Offline Moostik

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 99
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • Rolemaster GM since 1993.
Re: Spell failure ranges on spell charts due to high AT?
« Reply #13 on: April 08, 2016, 03:24:32 PM »
Elemental spell fumble should be different from elemental spell failure. Personally I've devised a mechanic for determining where the ball/bolt goes as opposed to where it is intended to go, if a spell is fumbled. For instance, rolling the fumble roll, a ball will explode on its way to the target equal in distance to the roll as a % of the way. High rolls (100+) means it literally explodes right away (in your face). For bolts, I use a d6 or d8 to determine direction from original aim, depending on wether the map uses squares or hexes, and then roll a d10 for # of squares off. This is the new "target". The bolt impacts on the first obstacle on the way to the new target. As with balls, detonation on caster is possible, and 66 on a fumble does something bad (like hit closest ally)

Offline Moostik

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 99
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • Rolemaster GM since 1993.
Re: Spell failure ranges on spell charts due to high AT?
« Reply #14 on: April 08, 2016, 03:25:46 PM »
I also agree of course that fumbles apply only to the first (center) target of a ball spell.