Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => Topic started by: Doridian on March 27, 2017, 03:19:42 AM
-
Hi all.
Just two brief forewords.
First one. I've managed to play a campaign only once with MERP in my youth. After my group of friends dissolved for reasons that are not of interest here, I managed to play RM with 1st Ed. rules, 2nd Ed. rules, RMSS, always as the GM and more often than not starting over with new characters and new players. So, even after all of these years, I've not accrued any true confidence with high level characters in general and magic users in particular. My question then is really as by a newbie of the game.
Second one. I consider Mentalism Companion one of the best books I've ever read (I mean book in the broadest meaning). Indeed it contains rules for playing travels in the dream world but just reading it it's a travel in the dream world by itself. Everything in that book in my opinion is great to be inspired by. But all of the pages regarding the use of divination spells and skills and the ways to oppose to those spells and skills have completely changed the way I consider a world of fantasy. After reading those pages I've not been able anymore to consider any setting without a concern for the presence of Seers and their abilities and for the ways the world around them has developed to balance their abilities (just to name one trivial thing: talismans to be used to "cover" meetings that have to be kept reserved).
Ok, now the question.
I feel I'm missing something in the way RM (at least before RMU) seems to work regarding countering magic. The main point is that everything seems to me intimately based on declaring actions and things beforehand. Just to give one example, the various Cancel spells are not instants and work by concentrating: the spell user is waiting for something to happen. Even an instantaneous spell has to be declared at the beginning of a round (at least in RMSS). And casting a spell after canceling your actions (in RMSS) is not among the allowed alternatives. Often you need to know the realm of the incoming target spell. But, again, the rules do not allow to cast more than one spell in a round, even if instant: so, if you need to cast a spell to identify an incoming spell, you cannot cast a subsequent spell to protect you from it.
So my question is: in your campaigns and adventures, with the old Spell Law and companions (in Essence Companion there are other spells aimed to defend against spells), how do you handle protecting from magic? Why (by which means - spells, items, skills) a powerful spell user is truly "powerful"? How a "powerful" spell user can have an edge above less powered magic using adversaries? Is it just a matter of higher level (RR's)? Is it a matter of putting up beforehand well prepared defenses? If it's the case, which ones?
I do not expect a companion-long answer (as the wonderful treaty is in the Mentalism Companion, I mean) just some hints: we use the spells X and Y this way, that way. If anyone would like to share with me his/her ideas, maybe I could work on it and give back some results.
Any ideas?
Thank you anyway for having read these lines.
Ciao
Alessandro
-
I think you are right in the sense that one of the main benefits of being a higher level caster is the RR benefit. Those base spell casting bonuses do become significant at higher levels. Against non-spell users, who don't tend to have high stats, your spells are very likely to succeed; and in the old Rolemaster phased system (at least the RM2 one, though I believe not the RMSS one), spells always go first. This means essentially that the Spell user always wins initiative and usually has his spell take effect.
Higher level spells also have benefits such as longer range, or multiple effects. A Bladeturn III spell for example can turn three attacks, whereas Bladeturn I can only turn one.
-
Thank you Hurin. I think I should try to be more precise.
Two spells that are in the direction I'm trying to investigate are Unessence and its versions (from the Dispelling Ways list) and the various Spell Hold (from Spell Reins).
If an Essence Spell User learns the 18th level Unessence, in case of perceived danger coming from another spell user, he/she could (try to) overcome the opponent by brute force casting first Unessence against the other Spell User. Obviously it could be resisted. And obviously the other spell user could possibly be from a different magic realm (say Mentalism). And obviously it's not properly a reaction: it's a preemption.
All of these "obviously" caveats make me think that being able to cast Unessence by itself it's not enough to make me a hard nut to crack.
Spell Hold seems more promising, for two reasons: it's realm independent and it's instantaneous. Even if a spell user is catched flat footed by a spell using adversary, he/she should be able to cast it anyway (in RMSS it would cost only 10% of activity).
Yet, putting a spell on hold by itself would not be a great deal: it should be briefly (the round after) followed by a proper spell to get rid of the problem before the original attack eventually resolves its effects. The safest maneuver would be to blink away, out of range of the original incoming spell (using some of the Lofty Bridge spells), maybe casting the proper Unessence (Unmentalism or Unchanneling) on the enemy spell user before leaving. Or the spell user could then cast on him/herself some protection spells to improve the RR chances.
Is this the usual way you have enemy magic users deal with each other?
Maybe my question could be rephrased this way: in your games how spell users are used to defend themselves from other spell users?
-
Perhaps the greatest advantage would be to know the class of your opponent; then he could cast the spell without worrying the caster was of another realm. Yes, it is pre-emption, as you say; but I think that is the way it can best be done. Many casters have spells that can help them figure out details about their opponents; and in lack of them, you could always try to hire spies (Magents would be particularly good at this) or pay for information. So yes, I think you are right in that some strategies will depend heavily on information and pre-emption.
Protection spells would work in a similar way, yes, though again, knowing the realm of the opponent would make your own spells more effective.
In sum, I would say yes, counter-spells are better done in a pre-emptive fashion, or with general protective spells.
-
What about wards and other forms of stored magic? I seem to recall a list that allowed spells to be fired based on certain conditions, which I had interpreted includes things such as, "Targeted by a spell."
-
Probably the best defense is a good offence. Kill them first, don't worry about blocking their spell.
Also, higher levels probably means more magic items with bonuses to RR.
What about power perception? I don't think that takes any activity besides whatever a general perception check requires, but if not you should be able to see their colors.
Sent from my E6533 using Tapatalk
-
Ciao Alessandro,
your question is one of the reasons why, as GM, I prefer to run low magic adventures.
First remember that preparing and casting spell are visible actions so you know if a magic users is preparing a spell to cast. Spell Hold and Cancel spells are usuful as long as you have win initiative. As player I used to cast Dispel spells just because are rage spell, so I was able to get closer to the rival mage and attack him with a no magical attack (because I cannot cast other spell in the same round) or protect another player and let him to get close and attack the rival spell user.
For knowing which realm is using the rival spells are not so usefull just because the "no 2 spell in the same round" rule, but remember that there are also skills that can help you to find out the realm so not always you have to use magic.
-
Ah, thank you all!
From your suggestions I understand that I should first consider "passive" elements, as magic items and their bonuses. And then I should also consider all of the spells that can be stacked beforehand one upon the other. The suggestion for Wards (and maybe Glyphs) is good. I'll consider the skills too. The idea is to build up a powerful NPC that turns to be a real challenge to players and not only a void promise: say I would like to have him/her smartly escape a trap by proper play and not simply by GM rulings...!
Honestly I confess I hoped to discover that the magic system provides some ways to portray magic battles with a comparable degree of choices and "maneuvering" as it happens with melee. But I suppose it's fun anyway.
Thank you again.
-
Actually, I find the magic system involves more 'maneuvering' than melee. In magical battles, there is the prefight phase...you research your enemy, spy on them, scry them, etc.
Then the preparation phase...creating traps or preparing to confront them with prep spells.
Then the actual fight.
Comparing that to melee, you see a guy, split your OB/DB and then roll to hit/crit.
You also have lists like Spell Defense (Chan), Protections (Cleric), Spell Wall (Ess), Spell Reins (Ess), Spell Resistance (Men) that all have general resistance spells as well.
-
I made a monster that's basically a magic-using golem, and I remember it was primarily attack-oriented. I'm going to have to go back and look at that, see what I can do as a counter-magic version. They were originally designed to work with golems and constructs, filling out the missile-melee-magic triad.
-
If you want to be really evil, you could convert the D&D Spell Weaver (in Monster Manual II, pg. 187), an insect-humanoid with 6 arms and the ability to cast more than one spell per round! Dum-dum-DUMMMM!!!!! (And, yes, you are totally able to think it is more "dumb" than, dum-dum-dum. *smiley-face emoji* )
-
I've always found that an arrow to the knee, or a knife to the gut tends to have a dampening effect on spellcasting.
But all in all, RM (at least in my eyes) tends to take a more prophylactic approach to dealing with things, either magical or otherwise, as opposed to countering what has already been let loose.
The key to any sort of success is preparation. Just ask any great villain.
-
The key to any sort of success is preparation. Just ask any great villain.
While I agree with that, I have yet to see a group of player characters really go proactive like that. For the most part, adventures are a reactionary set of events: something happens and the PCs react to it, they go into a place that is all mysterious with little-to-no knowledge and react to what they come across. (I am not saying I like that to be the basic model, but it is just how 90%+ of the games play in practice.)
For it to be the other way, they would have to take time and effort to seek out information. In other words: you need to do what the vast majority of players considers to be boring. To this end, I think it might be good for the RM game to come up with an in-action counter-spelling technique or spell, such as the spell Counterspell in D&D 5E, where it is cast as a reaction to another spell being cast and if done right - spell level vs spell level, basically - it works. (But that might be a topic for another thread.)
-
That's one of the reasons I was suggesting allowing instantaneous actions (0 AP ones) in RMU be castable during an opponent's turn. Then they could be used like 'Reactions' in DnD. In Magic: the Gathering, these are actually literally called 'instant' actions.
That's also why I think calling these sorts of actions 'instantaneous' in RMU but not actually making them 'instant' in the way these terms have been used in Magic or DnD might be confusing to players. If an action is 'instant', I think players might wonder, why does it have to be declared at the start of the round or action phase, and why does it sometimes cost AP? That doesn't really seem to match the definition of 'instant'.
So I think you could either have a category of actions that are truly 'instant', cost 0 AP, and can be taken as an interrupt of an enemy's action (real counters); or you don't and you rename 'instantaneous' actions 'minor' actions or 'quick' actions or something like that, because they're not truly 'instant' if they cost AP.
-
The way the current RMFRP initiative is set up, you can still declare your action to be to "ready" your spell shield, spell wall, spell turn, or other anti-magic spell you like, and declare you hold your action until the opponent casts their spell.
Works in practice much like a counterspell, except you had it ready in advance. But it is really hard to counter something until you actually know what you are countering. This is why RM spells are somewhat generic in the form of spell walls, turns, or shields.
In my opinion, this is a feature, and not a bug.
-
I guess what I'm saying is that DnD and Pathfinder have a category of 'reaction' abilities that allow characters a chance to react to enemy actions. I think this is tactically interesting, and almost essential in turn-based games, because in reality people can react to others' actions faster than once every 5 seconds. This was part of the problem with the Zone of Control rules presented in the beta of RMU: characters could run past each other without any chance of stopping or attacking the person running by. Turn-based round structures don't very accurately model real-time environments unless you give characters some chance or ability to react more often than once every 5 or 10 seconds.
Opportunity actions can help, but they're not a full substitute, because they require the action to be declared and readied. In reality, a guard standing at the castle gate could choose to either step in front of the thief trying to run past him or he could take a swing at him. He shouldn't have to have declared one readied and forfeit the other. This was why of course DnD had the category of interrupts (which characters can take before the triggering action, like Counterspell) and reactions (which characters can take immediately after the triggering action). Similarly, depending on which edition you are playing, DnD characters also have a version of a 'bonus' action that you can take once per turn. All of this gives characters in a turn-based environment a chance to react as they would in a real time environment.
Extending this then to RM, we see that RM really doesn't have a fully developed concept of an interrupt or reaction. RM spells are really only proactive, and not reactive. There is nothing quite like DnD's Counterspell in Rolemaster.
RMU's new category of 'instantaneous' actions then seem to me to be the best opportunity for filling that gap. All one would have to do would be to say that actions that cost 0 AP can be taken as interrupts (i.e. on an enemy's turn).
-
Bring a wizard on board! :)
-
That's one of the reasons I was suggesting allowing instantaneous actions (0 AP ones) in RMU be castable during an opponent's turn. Then they could be used like 'Reactions' in DnD. In Magic: the Gathering, these are actually literally called 'instant' actions.
In my gaming sessions (RMSS) I've house ruled that instantaneous spells can always be cast in reaction to an opponent's action: they do cost 10% activity and they do need a successful SCR maneuver (SCR in RMSS is much the same as ESF in RM2) to go to effect. If no % activity is left for the current round, the 10% is borrowed from the following round. If the one per round allowed spell has already been cast and the caster still likes to cast it, the instantaneous spell counts for the following round limit.
Is in RMU still ruled that no more than one spell per round can be cast?
-
That's one of the reasons I was suggesting allowing instantaneous actions (0 AP ones) in RMU be castable during an opponent's turn. Then they could be used like 'Reactions' in DnD. In Magic: the Gathering, these are actually literally called 'instant' actions.
In my gaming sessions (RMSS) I've house ruled that instantaneous spells can always be cast in reaction to an opponent's action: they do cost 10% activity and they do need a successful SCR maneuver (SCR in RMSS is much the same as ESF in RM2) to go to effect. If no % activity is left for the current round, the 10% is borrowed from the following round. If the one per round allowed spell has already been cast and the caster still likes to cast it, the instantaneous spell counts for the following round limit.
Sounds like we are thinking along the same lines. I haven't done this in RM2, but we are doing trying it in RMU.
Is in RMU still ruled that no more than one spell per round can be cast?
I believe the core rule is only one spell per round, yes, though I think there is also the option to allow more. I can't remember where exactly I saw that though; perhaps someone can correct me if I am wrong.
-
The optional rule for multiple spells per round is on page 85 of A&CL.
In general, you don't need an interrupt type action to cast an instant spell as a defense vs a spell or attack, because the spell or attack will take multiple AP. So the attacker begins their attack/spell and if you use your own next AP to cast your instant spell, it will take effect before the attack/spell is completed.
The two exceptions would be 1) the offensive spell itself was an instant spell, or 2) you don't have any time to respond, e.g. because you were surprised or otherwise unaware of the attacker. I think it's appropriate that in those circumstances you wouldn't be able to launch your defense (unless you had already cast it and were holding it ready because you anticipated ambush etc).
This assumes you are going 1 AP at a time through the round. If you are using the optional rule to resolve multiple AP at once, it makes sense to allow instant spells basically as interrupts when you would have the time and forewarning to do so.
-
In general, you don't need an interrupt type action to cast an instant spell as a defense vs a spell or attack, because the spell or attack will take multiple AP. So the attacker begins their attack/spell and if you use your own next AP to cast your instant spell, it will take effect before the attack/spell is completed.
Good point Jdale; I had not considered that because we use the simple round where we count down 4 AP at a time. But I can see how that would not be necessary with the 1 AP countdown.
-
The spells like Intuitions and Spell Anticipation or even Dreams will give your spell caster fore knowledge of their adversaries likely spells and tactics. This will allow you to have the right cancelling or spell reins style defence. A spell store can be then used to cast the defence as an instant spell.
-
A spell store can be then used to cast the defence as an instant spell.
I thought that a Store spell could be a solution, but it prevents the caster to cast any other spell in the meanwhile (I mean, while a spell is stored). At least I read it this way in RMSS SL. So it's not really different from putting it in opportunity or keep it alive by concentrating. Or, have I a blind spot?
-
A spell store can be then used to cast the defence as an instant spell.
I thought that a Store spell could be a solution, but it prevents the caster to cast any other spell in the meanwhile (I mean, while a spell is stored). At least I read it this way in RMSS SL. So it's not really different from putting it in opportunity or keep it alive by concentrating. Or, have I a blind spot?
There are two options here.
1 the Arcane lists have more advanced spell store spells so the stored spell could be bypassed.
2 a more powerful caster could/should research their own defensive spells. So you take a lower level defensive spell and research a higher level version that is instant (thus the higher level).
-
There are two options here.
1 the Arcane lists have more advanced spell store spells so the stored spell could be bypassed.
2 a more powerful caster could/should research their own defensive spells. So you take a lower level defensive spell and research a higher level version that is instant (thus the higher level).
Ah, I see. Spell research is an unexplored territory (to me).
By the way, I have to rectify one previous assertion of mine. I wrote that in my gaming sessions "I've house ruled" to allow always instants in reaction to enemy actions. It's a plain mistake, as I meant "I'll house rule": as in all of the posts seems clear that there's no a true way to have a spell work as it can be seen in some movies (even in Star Wars, where the Jedi and Darth Vader were able to deflect objects on the spot while engaged in combat), I'm willing to experiment that rule. And it would combine well with spell research having normal spells researched as instants and, that way, able to be cast on the spot when needed.
-
in all of the posts seems clear that there's no a true way to have a spell work as it can be seen in some movies (even in Star Wars, where the Jedi and Darth Vader were able to deflect objects on the spot while engaged in combat)...
I think the rules do cover that one. A caster casting a Deflections spell is doing almost exactly what Vader does to deflect the shot at him. It is an instantaneous spell, so in RMU especially it would be easy to cast this at the start of the turn, costing 0 AP, and then the caster could fight normally.
-
I think the rules do cover that one. A caster casting a Deflections spell is doing almost exactly what Vader does to deflect the shot at him. It is an instantaneous spell, so in RMU especially it would be easy to cast this at the start of the turn, costing 0 AP, and then the caster could fight normally.
Mumble...
Two considerations.
I've got to admit that I overlooked this way of taking instants. At least in RMSS Spell Law page 6 a duration of "-" is described as: the effects of the spell required no duration and are applied immediately. So I'm not at ease to think that you can declare (and cast) a Bladeturn or Deflection spell at the beginning of a round and have its effects apply later when (and whether) an attack eventually comes in. But this is just my problem here: I'm not sure how should I use this kind of spells.
In one of my previous posts I didn't explain very well when I wrote that I would have expected "a comparable degree of choices and maneuvering as it happens with melee". What I was pointing to is the fact that RMSS gives the players three options for a melee action: Full Melee, Press and Melee, React and Melee. And, for example, the latter is there just to allow a player to have melee without having to declare in advance anything (albeit at a penalty). I'm more and more convinced that this kind of embroidery in the rules for spells is just what in the RMSS game development was left behind and now is somehow missing (and never will show up officially).
To mimic what I understand is now in RMU I would rule (in RMSS and, maybe, in RM2 too) that a Normal Spell Casting action entails declaring the action phase and the specific spell, consuming the declared action slot and percentage for the round economics; the effect, instead, is resolved when it makes sense during the same round, even in the middle of an opponent action (if it fits the purposes of the spell itself), but abiding by initiative requirements. So, giving an example for Bladeturn in RMSS: a Magician engaged in melee (poor him/her) may declare it as a Snap action (and should as it's an instant), consuming 10% of initiative; consequently the same Magician may declare a Full Melee Normal Action against the opponent at 90% with no penalties (-10 for the instant and +10 for the Full Melee) and with a stated OB/DB split. The Bladeturn spell will be cast (and resolved) when the opponent will try to strike the Magician, as if it were an instant in the Snap Phase. If the opponent has declared the attack as a Snap Action and has won the initiative, the Magician has been preempted: he/she will be able to parry with the DB portion of the OB/DB split, but the spell will not be yet in effect.
Maybe this kind of interpretation was just implicitly... implied by the RMSS rules. I would like they have written it clearly as they described the melee options. I would then expect to see at least another option, call it Reacting Spell Casting action: the same as a Normal Spell Casting action, it's reserved to instantaneous spell, but the specific spell has not to be declared in advance. It would entail a SCR (ESF) maneuver, maybe with a +10 bonus (if no SCR had otherwise been required; a -5 if a SCR were required for other reasons).
Still I think I'll experiment in allowing an instant spell to be cast after canceling actions, with s SCR (ESF) maneuver, without the +10 bonus above (and a -10 if a SCR were required for other reasons).
I feel I'm starting to see the light...! :)
Now, if I turn to spell defenses...
-
P.S.: I think I'll not use any additional bonus to SCR (i.e. the +10, -5 and -10 ones) contrarily to what I wrote in the previous post.
-
One note in RMFRP that may not be in RMSS for Bladeturn/Deflections spells is:
”SPECIAL NOTES
1) When casting a spell that can affect multiple targets, the caster can concentrate in order to hold the spell until it can be applied to the allowed number of targets.”
So this takes away from that Mage defender's full OB by -50%(-50) if casting BTII+/DeflII+.
For us, in an RMFRP campaign, the GM allows non-Instant Utility spells to be cast as Instant ones in later phases with the same (-20)Modifier that a Snap Action Phase Instant spell gets.
Not RMU, but if it helps with a for-instance example of true Darth Vader/Skywalker reactions that could be it.
The -20 stays around for further actions that round, and should, and one doesn't need to further house rule extended round actions or multiple spells allowed in one round.
Just keep adding Concentration mods until expended or the spell is released before its due.
-
I'm not sure how you want to do it in RMSS/FRP, because I don't play that. But in RMU it is pretty simple.
The Deflections spell reads this:
"Caster can deflect any one missile that the caster can see and which passes within the 100' range of this spell; this causes 100 to be subtracted from the missile’s attack."
Over the years people on these forums have discussed this spell quite a bit, and there was an official clarification years ago (if I remember correctly) that the duration was only for the next round, but that the caster could apply it to any missile that targeted him over the course of that round. So I think RMU might clarify that by changing the wording to:
"Until the start of the caster's next turn, caster can deflect any one missile that the caster can see and which passes within the 100' range of this spell; this causes 100 to be subtracted from the missile’s attack."
This would then be quite simple, and very much like what Vader did. Since it is an instantaneous spell, it can be cast in the first action phase. I would also use my house rule that instantaneous actions that cost 0 AP can be cast anytime during the round (e.g. the instant someone targets the caster with an arrow, and the caster can see it); but that is just my own house rule.
In this case, the caster could cast the spell either at the beginning of Action Phase 1 or at any time when an opponent declares an attack. So long as the caster can see the missile, he could deflect it.
In RMU, then, this is very simple, and much like Vader's deflection.
-
One note in RMFRP that may not be in RMSS for Bladeturn/Deflections spells is:
”SPECIAL NOTES
1) When casting a spell that can affect multiple targets, the caster can concentrate in order to hold the spell until it can be applied to the allowed number of targets.”
So this takes away from that Mage defender's full OB by -50%(-50) if casting BTII+/DeflII+.
For us, in an RMFRP campaign, the GM allows non-Instant Utility spells to be cast as Instant ones in later phases with the same (-20)Modifier that a Snap Action Phase Instant spell gets.
Not RMU, but if it helps with a for-instance example of true Darth Vader/Skywalker reactions that could be it.
The -20 stays around for further actions that round, and should, and one doesn't need to further house rule extended round actions or multiple spells allowed in one round.
Just keep adding Concentration mods until expended or the spell is released before its due.
I'm not sure it's a foot-note in the Spell list. For sure in RMSS it's a general rule in Spell Law (somewhere in chapter 7). Instead I would ask if in RMFRP minimal percentage for melee actions has been lifted. I ask this for two reasons. First, in RMSS you cannot React/Press Melee with less than 80% activity and you cannot Full Melee with less than 60% either. So I would understand that you should not be able to keep concentrating on a spell (50% activity, not counting the 10% activity for the instantaneous spell itself) and, at the same time, be able to melee. Second, on the other hand, in the School of Hard Knocks there are modifiers for OB to be used in melee when in the same round you maneuver (move, ride, etc.): I wonder if those further penalties to melee (other than those intrinsic to spent activity %) derive from a difference in the round tactical activity rules in RMFRP.
-
Perhaps they can take a page out of the D&D 5E book (boy, it seems very weird to say something like that) and have some spells have the following wording (or something to this effect):
In reaction to an (attack/spell being cast/other type action/etc.) this spell can be cast by the character as an instantaneous action. In the case of Bladeturn and/or Deflections, the attacks will trigger the possible reaction-casting.
I think that something like this is important because, as I have found out over the years players tend to be more reactionary than proactive. Now, I would like them to be more proactive, but the fact is they cannot predict everything (heck, most of us cannot predict 5% of what an enemy in an RPG might do with all the magic, technology, and other things possible) and a certain action occurring might get them to remember something they can do. (I have seen that happen tons of times.) Of course, this should not necessarily allow them to break another rule of the number of spells castable per round, or whatever.
-
Yes, I think something like that would open some new tactical opportunities. A couple of things to note though:
--I suggested changing/clarifying the general rule for Instantaneous Actions (i.e. they can be cast as interrupts or reactions) rather than just rewording specific individual spells, because I think the new AP system in RMU needs to give characters a fair and realistic chance to react to other characters' actions. There are other spells and other actions as well that could work this way: use a shield in melee, for example, is currently an instantaneous action, but since the game does not specify that instantaneous actions can be taken anytime (such as on an opponent's turn), players might not think that a character could for example declare shield use on an attacker that was hidden at the start of the round (when declarations were made), and so could not be declared the target of shield use, but had then walked through a door and down a hall on say Action Phase 2. In cases like that, I want characters to have a chance to react reasonably to dynamic circumstances: I want the character who is standing at the end of the hall, and sees the enemy walk through the door and down the hall towards him, to be able to declare shield use against that enemy. So it seems to me that you need a category of actions like this that can be taken at any time during the round.
--Nomenclature is important here, both for clarity's sake and because certain words have been used in games that players will often have played before they come to Rolemaster. I would then term instantaneous actions that happen before the triggering action as 'interrupts', and actions that happen after the triggering action as 'reactions'. This was how DnD 4e defined them, and Magic: The Gathering too has the category of 'interrupts/instant' actions that work in the same way. Keeping the nomenclature consistent will help players who have played those games to easily grasp their function in Rolemaster.
Dungeons and Dragons also clarified this further by calling both interrupts and reactions 'immediate' actions, because they could be taken as 'immediate' responses to a trigger. So interrupts were technically 'immediate interrupts', and reactions were 'immediate reactions'.
-
In RMU, applying shield DB or parry DB against an attack isn't an action. In the case of parry, you need to be making an attack but you can declare it as it happens. In the case of a shield, you have a limit on how many people you can apply your shield against but you can do that when they attack you. So this discussion about interrupts would only be relevant for instant spells, and generally will only matter if you are not going phase by phase through the round.
(The other instant actions are dropping items and -50 perception checks. Also quick draw. As a GM, I wouldn't let someone do a perception check as an interrupt, there's no point is disrupting the flow since they can't act on the information anyway until their turn. Quick draw is not really relevant since you need to actually start an attack to do anything meaningful with the weapon in your hand. There are some odd circumstances where dropping things outside your turn might be useful. E.g. my PC has some grenade-like magic items that are triggered by impact and it might be useful to use one immediately when an opponent comes into range before they start an attack.)
In RMSS/RMFRP, it's a bit different because you are declaring your round's actions at the beginning of the round. RMFRP and RMSS are identical here so, in response to Doridian's question, you are correct that you can't Concentrate on a spell while attacking (unless you have more than 100% activity).
As for bladeturn/deflections...
In both RMU and RMSS, you can concentrate to hold a Bladeturn/Deflections until you have used it against the full number of targets. The footnote for Bladeturn in RMSS says "When casting a spell that can affect multiple targets, the caster can concentrate in order to hold the spell until it can be applied to the allowed number of targets." It's also in 7.1.16 on page 230. There's similar text in RMU.
What's perhaps a little unclear is when do you have to start concentrating. Do you have to concentrate in the round the spell is cast, or do you only have to do so in subsequent rounds? RMSS doesn't address this, suggesting you might have to concentrate immediately. RMU in the current draft of Spell Law (not in beta2) adds the text "Targets may be freely assigned during the round of casting, once the spell is cast. Concentration is required to carry any unused targeting forward into additional rounds." So that means you don't need to concentrate during the casting round to apply it against however many attacks, you only have to start concentrating in subsequent rounds if you haven't already used it up. This may have always been the intent (even in RMSS).
-
In RMU, applying shield DB or parry DB against an attack isn't an action.
The beta2 version says it is. On p. 102 (104 of the .pdf) this is spelled out explicitly:
"Using a shield is treated as an instantaneous action (0 Action Points for the first foe, 1 AP each foe thereafter)."
So this discussion about interrupts would only be relevant for instant spells, and generally will only matter if you are not going phase by phase through the round.
(The other instant actions are dropping items and -50 perception checks. Also quick draw. As a GM, I wouldn't let someone do a perception check as an interrupt, there's no point is disrupting the flow since they can't act on the information anyway until their turn. Quick draw is not really relevant since you need to actually start an attack to do anything meaningful with the weapon in your hand. There are some odd circumstances where dropping things outside your turn might be useful. E.g. my PC has some grenade-like magic items that are triggered by impact and it might be useful to use one immediately when an opponent comes into range before they start an attack.)
I think you just argued against your own statement there. You said it would only be relevant for instant spells, but then enumerated instances where it would also be relevant for other 'instantaneous actions'. Quickdraw for example would indeed be relevant if you were trying to declare parry against an attack: having a weapon out would allow you to parry, whereas not having one out might mean you couldn't. Perception too would be highly relevant if someone were sneaking up to ambush you. There are multiple other instances I can think of where the precise sequence of actions could mean the difference between life and death.
And although this is more of a problem if you are not going phase by phase, but rather resolving each character's entire actions for the round one by one, it is still a problem that needs to be solved if the option of resolving actions in this way (i.e. not phase by phase) is an option.
As for bladeturn/deflections...
In both RMU and RMSS, you can concentrate to hold a Bladeturn/Deflections until you have used it against the full number of targets. The footnote for Bladeturn in RMSS says "When casting a spell that can affect multiple targets, the caster can concentrate in order to hold the spell until it can be applied to the allowed number of targets." It's also in 7.1.16 on page 230. There's similar text in RMU.
What's perhaps a little unclear is when do you have to start concentrating. Do you have to concentrate in the round the spell is cast, or do you only have to do so in subsequent rounds? RMSS doesn't address this, suggesting you might have to concentrate immediately. RMU in the current draft of Spell Law (not in beta2) adds the text "Targets may be freely assigned during the round of casting, once the spell is cast. Concentration is required to carry any unused targeting forward into additional rounds." So that means you don't need to concentrate during the casting round to apply it against however many attacks, you only have to start concentrating in subsequent rounds if you haven't already used it up. This may have always been the intent (even in RMSS).
That sounds reasonable for Bladeturn and Deflections.
You might also consider taking a page out of DnD's book and add a category of 'free actions' that always cost 0 AP (alongside RMU's existing category of 'instantaneous' actions that cost 0 AP for the first action in the round and 1 AP after that). It's an easy addition that clarifies that by 'freely assign' you mean 'take a free action' to assign.
This would allow you to clarify the difference between shield use (which you seem to want to make a free action, but which according to the text in the rules right now is an instantaneous action) and instantaneous actions like instant spells.
-
On further reflection, I would further disagree that this discussion would only be relevant if you are not going phase by phase. Here's an example where it would matter even if there is a phase by phase countdown:
--My Magician is looking down a well lit hallway with a T junction at the end. She is alert, but at the beginning of the round, no enemies are visible; so she declares she will drink a potion of healing and then start walking down the hallway. On action phase 3, however, the orc archer who was 10' down one of the side passages moves into view and fires. This is on the Orc's initiative, in action phase 3. If my Magician can't cast Deflections on an enemy's turn, then she can't cast Deflections at all, because right now it is the Orc's turn; the Orc will be able to shoot the arrow and my Magician will die, even though the Orc is instantly visible to my Magician, and she sees him coming.
Here I think you can see how you have to give characters a chance to react reasonably to enemy actions.
-
In RMU, applying shield DB or parry DB against an attack isn't an action.
The beta2 version says it is. On p. 102 (104 of the .pdf) this is spelled out explicitly:
"Using a shield is treated as an instantaneous action (0 Action Points for the first foe, 1 AP each foe thereafter)."
Sorry, you're correct for beta2, but that's something that's changing. Previously noted here: http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=17150.msg209467#msg209467 I should have mentioned it was a change though.
For the instant actions as interrupts, let me say this again in brief:
0 AP Perception: you can't act on the information anyway, it just disrupts the flow of play, better not to allow it.
0 AP Quickdraw: you can't declare parry unless you've spent at least 1 AP on an attack action, so it doesn't make any difference whether you are able to instantly pull your weapon as an interrupt or not.
0 AP Drop Item: there are some edge cases where it might be useful to drop things as an interrupt, but it's not at all clear that it's good for the game that you can do so. If do you want to have something ready to drop as an interrupt ("if you take one step forward..."), you can use a conditional action.
0 AP Deflections/Bladeturn when surprised: it certainly makes a difference and I said so http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=17914.msg216717#msg216717 but I also said that when someone catches you completely by surprise, it makes sense that you shouldn't have time to get the spell off. If you have at least 1 AP of action before it happens, that's sufficient to cast your spell; if you don't even have 1 AP to respond, you are essentially surprised (or at least unprepared).
And, again, it might make sense to handle these differently if you are not going phase by phase.
-
In RMU, applying shield DB or parry DB against an attack isn't an action.
The beta2 version says it is. On p. 102 (104 of the .pdf) this is spelled out explicitly:
"Using a shield is treated as an instantaneous action (0 Action Points for the first foe, 1 AP each foe thereafter)."
Sorry, you're correct for beta2, but that's something that's changing. Previously noted here: http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=17150.msg209467#msg209467 I should have mentioned it was a change though.
Ok, that's good; sorry I forgot about that discussion we had (it was a year ago!).
The rule itself seems fine, but why not codify it to make it more clear? That is to say, you seem to have a category of 'free actions' which are actions that always only cost 0 AP; you're just not saying it explicitly, and rather than having it as a general rule, you are making specific exceptions. So why not do what DnD did, and codify this into a general rule -- i.e. a category of 'free actions' that always cost 0 AP? Then in the action cost chart in Arms Law, you just list this and any other free actions as a 'free action', and have a note clarifying that free actions cost 0 AP. This system will be instantly recognizable to DnD players. DnD lists several actions that are free actions (including drop an item and speaking), and you might want these to be free in Rolemaster too:
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Free_Actions
You've already got the basics in place of this system now, it is just that you are doing it piecemeal with individual special rules; so why not just codify it?
0 AP Perception: you can't act on the information anyway, it just disrupts the flow of play, better not to allow it.
You many not be able to act on the information, but that information will determine whether or not you are surprised or flatfooted, whether the attacker can use Ambush, etc. That information could mean the difference between life and death. Note that my Magician sees the Orc; she is not surprised by it. She just can't act because it is not her initiative. In a case like that, you have to give her a reasonable chance to defend herself, because you're trying to model real-time combat in a turn-based system. You have to give her a fair chance to react on an opponent's turn, or else you will have players gaming the system by just waiting until one player declares an action, then charging in and attacking them when they can't defend themselves.
In fact, in Dungeons and Dragons, one could act on this information by saying, 'Look out! There's an orc!' This is because talking is a free action. Can you not do this in RMU?
0 AP Quickdraw: you can't declare parry unless you've spent at least 1 AP on an attack action, so it doesn't make any difference whether you are able to instantly pull your weapon as an interrupt or not.
I think that extra rule is going to be problematic, because characters won't have a fair chance to react to changing circumstances. In my example above, if the Orc had been using a sword rather than bow and my magician had her staff out, then this rule would mean she could not attempt to parry the orc's attack at all? That seems unfair to her: she was not surprised by the Orc at all: she saw him coming down the well lit hall. But the system is treating her as if she were surprised.
It would be better I think to say that declaring shield use and declaring parry is simply a 'Free Action' that costs 0 AP. They you can specify that the parryer must also declare an attack action.
0 AP Drop Item: there are some edge cases where it might be useful to drop things as an interrupt, but it's not at all clear that it's good for the game that you can do so. If do you want to have something ready to drop as an interrupt ("if you take one step forward..."), you can use a conditional action.
Again, DnD went through this problem extensively, and RMU already says that dropping an item is a 0 AP action. Why not just say dropping an item is a 'free action', like DnD does?
0 AP Deflections/Bladeturn when surprised: it certainly makes a difference and I said so http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=17914.msg216717#msg216717 but I also said that when someone catches you completely by surprise, it makes sense that you shouldn't have time to get the spell off. If you have at least 1 AP of action before it happens, that's sufficient to cast your spell; if you don't even have 1 AP to respond, you are essentially surprised (or at least unprepared).
But she's not surprised, and it is arguable whether or not she is unprepared. However, the game is treating her worse. The surprise rules on p. 86 note that if a character is not expecting combat, but is aware of the attacker's presence, then the only penalty she gets is a -20 to initiative. Here, though, my character is actually not only aware of the attacker's presence but expecting combat; yet instead of a -20 to initiative, she is prevented altogether from parrying or casting a spell until the orc's attack is resolved.
Do you see how harsh that is? It is an effect of not allowing characters a reasonable chance to react to real time movement in a turn-based environment. This is why DnD has categories of 'reactions' and 'free actions', so that characters are not screwed by the turn-based rules. If you don't allow reactions, then players will figure out pretty quickly how to game the system by waiting till the last minute to attack, and then attacking enemies who are made defenseless by the system's lack of reaction abilities.
And, again, it might make sense to handle these differently if you are not going phase by phase.
Perhaps I was mistaken, but doesn't RMU offer the option of going to a 4 AP action count? You seem to be saying that this will be a problem only if you use the 4 AP count; why isn't that a problem for you then? I would expect that if there was a problem with any option RMU offers, then that is a problem that needs to be addressed.
-
A couple of further considerations:
--You might not need any special 'surprise' rules if the core mechanics are sound. Right now, the rules state that if a combatant was not aware of an enemy, then that combatant can't act at all for the first round of combat, and additionally that that combatant is 'flatfooted' (other characters get +60 to hit him). That is one way to handle surprise, but it is a special rule (therefore extra rules), and players might see it as a bit punitive if they can't even talk for five long seconds, while opponents get a special (and somewhat undefined) +60 bonus to attack them that round.
I think there is a simpler way to handle surprise, and that the core mechanics can already handle surprise without resorting to special rules at all. The way you really 'surprise' another group is by having bows and spells readied (using the existing rules for conditional actions), by being able to attack from an advantageous angle by picking the direction of attack, and I would add by benefiting from the fact that the opponent can't use quickness DB because s/he can't see the attack coming (that last part would be my own houserule).
Note that those advantages are more than enough to represent surprise; you don't need an extra category of 'flatfooted' giving +60 to an attack, nor do you need special rules about defenders not being able to act for an entire round. The attackers then get the benefit of being able to hold a conditional attack (thus unloading it all in the first Action Phase, and acting normally after that), being able to attack from a good angle (e.g. not through a shielded side), and being able to attack foes who can't use quickness DB because they can't see the attack coming. That's more than enough of an advantage; you don't need special 'flatfooted' rules or anything extra on top of it.
--In my example above, I would like to give my magician a 0 AP quick perception roll to see if she spots the Orc. I would make this perception roll follow the normal rules for actions: -50 due to spending 2 less AP than normally required for a perception. She should get at least a chance to see the Orc who is rushing towards her. If instantaneous actions can be taken on an enemy's turn, as I am suggesting, then if she succeeds at the perception, she will be able get up a Deflections before the arrow arrives. If she fails, then she didn't have time to get the spell off... in other words, she was 'surprised'. But note here that the core mechanics are taking care of surprise fully; you don't need extra rules for it and extra categories and modifiers like 'flatfooted'.
-
The reason to have a flat-footed bonus is because not everyone has a quickness bonus and you need to have the surprise be able to affect them, as well. I like the idea that you keep everything the same, but get the flat-footed bonus, that way you model a difference between those with negative quickness modifiers all the way through those with very high ones. Otherwise, I like the idea of the perception test helping determine surprise - heck, I like it to help determine initiative too. (That should not be all down to pure quickness.)
Having some sort of reaction type action is needed to help smooth out the bumpy bits of the turn-based combat system. (Hey! You had your crossbow out and ready to fire? Who cares? You got 1 point lower in initiative than the orc who has to move 30 feet to attack you with it's axe. [Forgive me if this type of situation has already been addressed, I haven't followed the RMU development much lately. Mostly because I have come to believe that it will never actually get done and put out. I hope I am wrong, but I just don't think so.])
-
Yes, I think some rule for reactions would help to smooth out those bumpy bits. In regards to how to handle the perception, another possibility is to use the DnD concept of 'passive perception', which is the basic perception people have without having to roll. In DnD, characters take a 10 on a d20 (so a 50 on percentile if you did this in RMU), add their perception skill, and this is the number that stealthy attackers need to exceed in order to sneak up on them. The number is of course modified for conditions (pluses for daylight, minuses for darkness, etc.). The benefit of that is that you don't need to roll (and thus don't give your players a chance to metagame); this just represents the character's general level of awareness.
In regards to the flatfooted bonus, I think if you do decide to keep it, you might want to tone it down a bit, and make it equal to say the bonus you get for attacking a stunned opponent. Consider the numbers: my Paladin has a 60 DB right now so long as he is aware of an attack: 30 from shield, and 30 from his quickness. Now imagine he is surprised. The 30 from shield is gone, because my attacker can choose to attack me from behind. The 30 from quickness is also gone (I checked the RMU rules and this is not a houserule, but is actually in the RAW: flatfooted foes do not get quickness DB). My attacker now also gets the flatfooted bonus (which is +25 for surprise and +35 for the 'automatic rear attack regardless of position' that represents the attacker's ability to hit a foe at any part of his body), but then on top of that I also get positional bonuses, such as rear attack (again). That adds another +35, for a total of +95. So my DB has gone from being +60 to -95... a 155 point split.
I would say do away with the automatic +35 bonus for 'automatic rear attack regardless of position'. It is more than enough to just have the +25 for a surprised foe, combined with any positional modifiers, and the negation of DB due to quickness. You don't need the extra 'automatic rear attack regardless of position'.
-
With regard to passive perception... there are some things that characters definitely won't notice until they take time to look, and some things that are totally obvious and they will immediately see. But there's a lot of gray area in between. When in doubt, as GM I would make a perception roll for them (or depending on the circumstances might have them roll it).
-
I would too, so I think we're on the same page there, though the Rules As Written don't seem to support that interpretation. You might want to make the advice you just gave into a formal statement in the rules, because I can see people arguing that there is nothing in the rules that states you can make a 0 AP perception. That is one example of where I think the game needs to give people a bit of a chance to react to others' actions.
The main potential problem though here, IMHO, is that even if my Magician makes her perception, it is too late for her too declare a parry. She has literally no chance to defend herself. The reason she has no chance is that she has to have spent at least 1 AP on a melee attack to be able to parry, and the Orc's attack is going to be delivered before it is her initiative, even though she can see the Orc charging down the hallway.
I understand why you might want this rule that characters have to have spent at least 1 AP on an attack in order to parry, but I don't think it is necessary, and I think the game might be better without it. We've been playing for several years now with allowing the characters the option of declaring parry as essentially a 0 AP free action when they are attacked, and we haven't had any problem with it. It's not actually all that problematic when you think about it. When you say you are parrying, you are not declaring a discrete action; you are holding back some of your offense in order to play defensively, and that defensiveness lasts for the rest of the round, even if you don't spend all 4 of your AP for the round on melee. So parrying is kind of like a defensive stance that you adopt for the round, rather than a discrete act that you do once on action phase 1 and then stop doing. If that's the case, then I'm fine with allowing my players to declare it as a response to being attacked (and then of course locking themselves into melee attacking for the x amount of action phases afterwards); this seems to give them an appropriate chance to react. Both systems require them to attack in order to get the benefit of a parry; we only differ insofar as I would let them declare this as a reaction.
If you don't allow reactions, you also might have a problem with missile attacks. These can be made for only 1 AP (at -50). So imagine if my archer wins initiative: he now has immunity from 'Deflections' spells, because his 1 AP missile attack is going to be resolved on his initiative, before any casters can cast instantaneous spells-- even though the missile attack costs 1 AP and the spell only costs 0. That doesn't seem quite fair to the casters. Archers can just wait till they win initiative, and then don't have to worry about anyone casting Deflections agaisnt them. I think it would be better in these cases to allow instantaneous spells (or at least the first instantaneous spell each turn) to be cast as a reaction, to eliminate this problem.
-
In regards to the flatfooted bonus, I think if you do decide to keep it, you might want to tone it down a bit, and make it equal to say the bonus you get for attacking a stunned opponent. Consider the numbers: my Paladin has a 60 DB right now so long as he is aware of an attack: 30 from shield, and 30 from his quickness. Now imagine he is surprised. The 30 from shield is gone, because my attacker can choose to attack me from behind. The 30 from quickness is also gone (I checked the RMU rules and this is not a houserule, but is actually in the RAW: flatfooted foes do not get quickness DB). My attacker now also gets the flatfooted bonus (which is +25 for surprise and +35 for the 'automatic rear attack regardless of position' that represents the attacker's ability to hit a foe at any part of his body), but then on top of that I also get positional bonuses, such as rear attack (again). That adds another +35, for a total of +95. So my DB has gone from being +60 to -95... a 155 point split.
And I am saying you don't need all of this complication. The big difference between flat-footed and normal is the fact that you cannot use your OB for DB - which is also the biggest factor in defense. So, for surprise/flat-footed situations, you just leave everything the same, except they cannot use OB for DB and the attacker gets a flat modifier to attack, say somewhere between +35 to +50.
jdale: The way you use Passive Perception when there are different "levels" of difficulty is very easy: if their PP is high enough, the see it, if not they don't. Also, dedicated searching isn't usually perception but investigation (in D&D 5e). It is the difference between randomly spotting the goblin hiding behind the pillar (perception) and finding the hidden lock in the engraved mural on the wall (investigation). Basically, it is saying that you cannot find some things just by glancing around, you have to take time to search.
This might be getting off the track of anti-magic/spell tactics and maybe should have it's own thread.
-
And I am saying you don't need all of this complication. The big difference between flat-footed and normal is the fact that you cannot use your OB for DB - which is also the biggest factor in defense. So, for surprise/flat-footed situations, you just leave everything the same, except they cannot use OB for DB and the attacker gets a flat modifier to attack, say somewhere between +35 to +50.
I think we're not all that far apart. Everyone agrees that one of the benefits of surprise is that your target can't parry by using OB for DB. The only detail we're arguing about is whether the attacker should also get a flat bonus for surprise on top of that (your preference) or instead just benefit from any positional bonuses like rear or flank while also attacking a target who can't use quickness bonus (my preference). I don't think you're arguing that there should both be a flat bonus and positional bonuses (though correct me if I am wrong)? I think that giving both a flat and positional bonuses -- which is what the current system does -- would be too much.
This might be getting off the track of anti-magic/spell tactics and maybe should have it's own thread.
Possibly, though the general question of reactions is directly relevant to counter spells.
I think the fact that an archer can make a 1 AP missile attack before a spellcaster can make a 0 AP instantaneous spell is an issue that should be addressed. An action that costs 0 AP to me should always go before an action that costs 1 AP.
-
An archer can make an attack in 1 AP because they've already completed loading and readying the weapon to fire. This represents spending little or no time on aiming which is why the attack is at -50.
-
An archer can make an attack in 1 AP because they've already completed loading and readying the weapon to fire. This represents spending little or no time on aiming which is why the attack is at -50.
And doesn't spending 0 AP to cast an 'instantaneous' spell take even less or no time? 0 is less than 1, after all.
-
I think we're not all that far apart. Everyone agrees that one of the benefits of surprise is that your target can't parry by using OB for DB. The only detail we're arguing about is whether the attacker should also get a flat bonus for surprise on top of that (your preference) or instead just benefit from any positional bonuses like rear or flank while also attacking a target who can't use quickness bonus (my preference). I don't think you're arguing that there should both be a flat bonus and positional bonuses (though correct me if I am wrong)? I think that giving both a flat and positional bonuses -- which is what the current system does -- would be too much.
Yeah, sounds pretty close, and doing all that extra stuff is unnecessary (flat and positional bonuses). Perhaps a stacking rule could be put into place; say only the biggest 2 modifiers are used, or something like that.
I think the fact that an archer can make a 1 AP missile attack before a spellcaster can make a 0 AP instantaneous spell is an issue that should be addressed. An action that costs 0 AP to me should always go before an action that costs 1 AP.
This is one of the problems with AP systems, you need to constantly make exceptions (though, I guess, one could say that about any system). In the old action-based system, wasn't spell casting before missile fire? I forget. It seems to me, that the only way a 1 AP (or more) action can go before a 0 AP action is if the former was a held action, where the higher initiative gets the advantage. Because in every math class I had, 0 was less than 1.
-
Yeah, sounds pretty close, and doing all that extra stuff is unnecessary (flat and positional bonuses). Perhaps a stacking rule could be put into place; say only the biggest 2 modifiers are used, or something like that.
Yeah, that might work.
The reason I'm not that big a fan of the flat bonuses is that they seem to me to apply to things that they shouldn't apply to. Consider for example if you tried to 'surprise' a Stone Golem from behind. Right now in the Rules As Written for RMU, the game would give you a +95 to hit the Golem (+35 for rear attack, +25 for surprise, and an additional +35 'automatic' bonus that represents you being able to hit him anywhere you want). Why do you get a double bonus, and why do you get a surprise bonus at all (I am asking rhetorically, of course)? The Golem can't really be surprised in the way a person can. I can definitely see you getting positional bonuses to hit him, because if you strike him from behind, he can't see you, and his arms are less likely to get in the way of your attack. So I'm fine with giving the attacker a +35 bonus for attacking the golem from behind. But I don't think the attacker should double dip by getting the +35 rear attack twice, and also get an additional +25 bonus on top of that for attacking that golem 'by surprise'. And I don't think the golem should additionally be forbidden to take actions for the next five seconds (the next round) either. A golem wouldn't freeze for five seconds or fail to act out of fear or panic or anything like that; he doesn't feel fear or panic. The positional bonuses seem to me to be enough to represent what happens when you ambush him.
This is one of the problems with AP systems, you need to constantly make exceptions (though, I guess, one could say that about any system). In the old action-based system, wasn't spell casting before missile fire? I forget. It seems to me, that the only way a 1 AP (or more) action can go before a 0 AP action is if the former was a held action, where the higher initiative gets the advantage. Because in every math class I had, 0 was less than 1.
I wouldn't say this is an exception; I think it is just a clarification that actually simplifies the rule: the rule is that actions that cost less go first. But I do agree with you on that central rule. And yes, you are right: in the RM2 system, spells always went first in their own separate phase.
So perhaps the simplest way of doing it is just to allow 0 AP actions to go first in the turn, or better yet to be declarable as instant reactions. 0 AP actions would include any free actions like declaring shield use (that always cost 0), as well as each character's first instantaneous action per turn (which costs 0), and any held actions (which can be treated as costing 0).
-
The reason I'm not that big a fan of the flat bonuses is that they seem to me to apply to things that they shouldn't apply to. Consider for example if you tried to 'surprise' a Stone Golem from behind. Right now in the Rules As Written for RMU, the game would give you a +95 to hit the Golem (+35 for rear attack, +25 for surprise, and an additional +35 'automatic' bonus that represents you being able to hit him anywhere you want). Why do you get a double bonus, and why do you get a surprise bonus at all (I am asking rhetorically, of course)? The Golem can't really be surprised in the way a person can. I can definitely see you getting positional bonuses to hit him, because if you strike him from behind, he can't see you, and his arms are less likely to get in the way of your attack. So I'm fine with giving the attacker a +35 bonus for attacking the golem from behind. But I don't think the attacker should double dip by getting the +35 rear attack twice, and also get an additional +25 bonus on top of that for attacking that golem 'by surprise'. And I don't think the golem should additionally be forbidden to take actions for the next five seconds (the next round) either. A golem wouldn't freeze for five seconds or fail to act out of fear or panic or anything like that; he doesn't feel fear or panic. The positional bonuses seem to me to be enough to represent what happens when you ambush him.
You don't get the +35 rear attack bonus twice. You get the surprise bonus of +25, and the attack is treated as a rear attack for +35. If you happen to be standing to the rear of the target, the attack is treated as a rear attack... but if you're not standing to the rear of the target, the attack is treated as a rear attack, exactly the same. +35 positional modifier in either case, so total of +60. That's why it's described as an automatic rear attack and not simply as a +35 flatfooted attack bonus.
I think as GM you could certainly rule that some entities are always prepared for combat and that therefore they could never be caught flatfooted. But given that stone golems have omnidirectional life sense, you could also think of it as the creature needing to reorient to figure out what is attacking it, since whatever concealed you was not merely being out of its field of view (since there is no "out of view").
-
You don't get the +35 rear attack bonus twice. You get the surprise bonus of +25, and the attack is treated as a rear attack for +35. If you happen to be standing to the rear of the target, the attack is treated as a rear attack... but if you're not standing to the rear of the target, the attack is treated as a rear attack, exactly the same. +35 positional modifier in either case, so total of +60. That's why it's described as an automatic rear attack and not simply as a +35 flatfooted attack bonus.
Ah, I get it now. You are kind of already using the suggestion RandalThor made, namely, that the bonuses don't stack. That sounds better.
You might want to clarify that though in the text, both of the Surprise section and the Ambush section. The description of the Ambush skill on p. 66 says this:
"Ambush is the ability to make a very precise attack and
can only occur when the opponent is completely
unaware of the character’s attack. In such a situation,
the ambushing character makes an attack roll as normal
(with a bonus for surprise and frequently for a rear or
flank attack)."
That seems to suggest that the rear or flank bonus is something different than the surprised bonus, since the rear/flank bonus only happens sometimes ('frequently') rather than being an inherent part of the surprise bonus. I guess you are saying though that the difference is between being completely surprised and unprepared for combat (flatfooted) versus just being surprised and prepared for combat (surprised), as the game explains on p. 86, with the surprise rules?
In any case, I would recommend the text of the Surprised or Flatfooted section on p. 92 be clarified to indicate that the +35 is a positional bonus. Right now, the text reads:
"When executing attacks on surprised foes, the attacker
gets +25 OB, in addition to any positional modifiers (if
melee). Against flatfooted foes, the bonus is the +60:
+25 for surprise and +35 for an automatic rear attack,
regardless of position."
I would suggest adding a couple of words (and cutting out a couple) in this way to make it clear that the +35 is the positional bonus, and so doesn't stack with the other potential positional bonuses:
"When executing attacks on surprised foes, the attacker
gets +25 OB, in addition to any positional modifiers (if
melee). Against flatfooted foes, the total bonus is +60: +25 for surprise and +35 for an automatic rear attack positional bonus,
regardless of position.(This bonus does not stack with any other rear or flank positional bonuses)."
I think as GM you could certainly rule that some entities are always prepared for combat and that therefore they could never be caught flatfooted. But given that stone golems have omnidirectional life sense, you could also think of it as the creature needing to reorient to figure out what is attacking it, since whatever concealed you was not merely being out of its field of view (since there is no "out of view").
Yes, and Stone Golems are notoriously slow, so I could do that. I guess I'm just being picky in pushing a little to define exactly what the +25 'surprised' bonus represents. The game already prevents a player that is surprised from parrying or using quickness DB, so the surprise bonus isn't representing the fact that surprised characters can't defend themselves as well. The game also gives the +35 rear attack bonus on top of that, so the surprised bonus isn't representing the fact that the attacker can strike anywhere she wants. So what exactly is it representing then? And if we can't give a clear answer, and if the surprise bonus isn't really necessary anyway because an attacker already gets so many benefits from attacking a surprised character, then do we really need the surprised bonus at all? Wouldn't the game be better without it?
-
Might it be possible to say simply this: whatever can't be stunned, can't be surprised?
-
Surprise results in the loss of your first 1-2 AP. It just represents that you are unready, and the bonus to hit you is just +25. That seems like it could happen to anything. It just wasn't in the right posture to immediately fight.
Flatfooted results in the loss of the entire round. You are completely unprepared, the bonus to hit you is +25 (surprise) and treated as a rear attack (+35) and you can't use your shield or Qu DB. I could see some entities being immune to being caught flat-footed.
Who is immune to stun... hmm... elementals, champions, some demons, some undead, battlepede, some malevolent plants, constructs, golems... that doesn't seem unreasonable to use that as the dividing line for flatfooted.
-
As for the golem (and any creature/thing that can't be surprised) it is easy enough to say they don't suffer from flat-footed and similar situational effects. If the attacker is coming from behind, they get the flank/rear attack modifier and whatever else would apply, but not the "surprise" modifier. Pretty simple if you ask me.
I wouldn't say that what can't be stunned can't be surprised, because one is more of a physical situation (stun*) while the other is purely mental (surprise). Elementals and the like that cannot be stunned, I believe can be surprised because they do have a mind that can be confused. The golem with the "omnidirectional awareness" is different because it is more like a robot with radar, and doesn't have nerves or feelings and what-not, so being surprised is very difficult. (Can it be caught "flat-footed?" Yup. With magic that masks ones presence I believe so.)
I do believe a flat modifier instead of tons of changes (no Qu bonus, and stuff like that) done at the moment is better for game play. It is likely easier to just give a couple of different levels of "surprise" with their own modifiers than to have the players do all the calculating of their DB for the different situations. In this case, having it easier will do much more to draw in new players. All of us "old-timers" already know how to do it the more complicated way and that can be put in there as optional rules in a side bar.
*Though, technically, it is a mental situation ("I just can't even right now!") brought on by a physical one ("Ouch! That hurt.").
-
Ok, I think I understand the system a lot better; thanks for the explanations. Which way you want to handle surprise does to some extent come down to a matter of preference, with RandalThor preferring the ease of a flat bonus and me preferring the granularity of the already existing bonuses.
I do nevertheless think that the flat +25 surprise bonus is still a little amorphous, and that you probably don't need it. It is a little amorphous because I can already see players arguing that they are never 'not expecting combat'. How exactly do you define that? If my party is travelling for a day through the wilderness and then gets attacked, how do I as a GM determine who was 'expecting combat' and who was not? It is a huge difference between being merely surprised (+25 to be hit and losing 1 or 2 AP worth of actions) versus being flatfooted (+60 to hit, losing an entire round, and having most if not all of your DB negated). In the example with my Paladin, his DB would go from 60 (not surprised) to 35 (surprised) to -60 (flatfooted): that is a difference of 95 DB between surprised and flatfooted. If that is the case, then the difference between the two needs to be very explicit. What do players have to do to indicate they are 'expecting combat'?
I also think that you probably don't need the flat bonus because getting an extra 2 worth of actions is a significant enough bonus to represent simple surprise, and an extra 4 AP worth of actions together with an automatic rear attack bonus (+35) and the complete negation of both shield and Quickness DB seems more than enough to represent total surprise (flatfootedness).